Last week an item was buried in the Los Angeles Times about an initiative on the California ballot this November. I grew up the stereotypical surfer here, and part of that meant I smoked pot pretty often. I haven't in awhile and have no desire to these days, so this isn't about advocating for decriminalization, but about a bigger picture seen through this issue; some points of history regarding cannabis, including what the criminalization of cannabis is actually about, what that costs society, and where corporate funding of political speech, and electronic voting machines come into play in relation to it.
First some history:
Archaeologists agree that cannabis was among the first crops purposely cultivated by human beings over 6,000 years ago.
For 3,000 years prior to 1842, cannabis extracts were the most widely-used medicines in the world. Its first known report as medicine is 2727 BCE, China.
Hemp was already in the new world when the first European colonists arrived, thought to have been introduced by explorers, migrating birds, or possibly drifting shipwrecks.
The Puritans at Jamestown grew hemp as part of their contract with the Virginia Company. Mandatory cultivation of hemp continued throughout the New World, the General Court in 1637 at Hartford Connecticut, and the Massachusetts courts in 1639, ordered families to plant one teaspoon of seed, "that we might in time have supply of linen cloth among ourselves."
Colonies under the crown were banned from spinning and weaving hemp, as this fostered dependence to England. Exported fibers were then brought back as finished products from England. As the market was flooded with hemp, immigrant weavers from Ireland arrived in Massachusetts, passing their skills to the peasantry. What may have seemed a small movement grew into self-sufficiency from the British Crown to the extent of a boycott of English fabric products, and these were some of the conditions which lead into the War of Independence.
Up until 1776 many colonies passed laws to encourage farmers to produce hemp, Virginia designed laws to compel farmers, fining those who did not comply. Some citizens were hired to promote and educate the public about the importance of hemp. Books were published that wanted to establish hemp as America’s trademark product. It was legal to pay taxes with hemp in America from 1631 until the early 1800s.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both promoters of hemp, and as noted in their farm diaries, spoke of their experiences as farmers of it. Throughout Washington’s diary he spoke about the quality of seeds, always taking care to sow them in the best areas on his farm. He documented the importance of cultivating seeds at the proper time, taking care to pull the male plants from the females.
Jefferson believed hemp to be a superior crop to tobacco, which he said exhausted the soil, used too much manure, and provided no nourishment for cattle. Hemp on the other hand, "was of the first necessity to commerce and marine, in other words to the wealth and protection of the country."
Jefferson, during his tenure as Governor of Virginia kept reserves of hemp, and in May of 1781 used hemp as currency when money from the government was in short supply. Around 1815 Jefferson received the first US patent for his hemp breaking machine, which reportedly did the work of ten men.
Benjamin Franklin started one of America's first paper mills with cannabis. This allowed America to have a free colonial press without having to beg or justify the need for paper and books from England.
In preparation for war, mandatory cultivation laws were passed, and colonist increased their production of hemp for paper and clothes. Colonists were convinced to take up arms, reading pamphlets published on hemp paper. Thomas Paine, who in 1776 encouraged colonist to fight for freedom with Common Sense, wrote, "in almost every article of defense we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage."
Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence (June 28, 1776) was written on Dutch (hemp) paper, as was the second draft completed on July 2, 1776. This was the document actually agreed to on that day and announced and released on July 4, 1776. On July 19, 1776, Congress ordered the Declaration be copied and engrossed on parchment (a prepared animal skin) and this was the document actually signed by the delegates on August 2, 1776. Hemp paper lasted 50 to 100 times longer than most preparations of papyrus, and was a hundred times easier and cheaper to make.
Betsy Ross sewed the first American flag from hemp fabric.
Refusing to grow Hemp in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries was against the law. You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769.
Until the 1820s in America (and until the 20th Century in most of the rest of the world), 80% of all textiles and fabrics used for clothing, tents, bed sheets, and linens, rugs, drapes, quilts, towels, diapers, etc., were principally made from fibers of cannabis.
The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Abraham Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd, came from the richest hemp-growing family in Kentucky.
Abraham Lincoln was an avowed enemy of prohibition. His wife was prescribed cannabis for her nerves after his assassination. Virtually every president from the mid-19th Century up until prohibition routinely used cannabis medicines.
In the 1890s the most popular American marriage guides recommended cannabis as an aphrodisiac of extraordinary powers, no one ever suggested prohibition laws against cannabis. And while there was talk of an alcohol prohibition, women's temperance organizations suggested "hashish" as a substitute for "demon" alcohol, which they said led to wife beating.
World Fairs and International Expositions from the 1860s through the early 1900s featured popular Turkish Hashish smoking expositions and concessions. Hashish smoking was entirely new for Americans. However, smoking hashish was only about one-third as strong or long lasting as orally ingesting the cannabis extract medicines that even American children were regularly prescribed.
For more than 1,000 years before the time of Christ, until 1883, cannabis hemp was our planet's largest agricultural crop and most important industry, involving thousands of products and enterprises; producing the majority of Earth's fiber, fabric, lighting oil, paper, incense and medicines. In addition, it was a primary source of essential food oil and protein for humans and animals.
Until 1883, 75-90% of all paper in the world was made with cannabis hemp fiber including that for books, Bibles, maps, paper money, stocks and bonds, newspapers, etc. The Gutenberg Bible (in the 15th Century), Pantagruel and the Herb pantagruelion, Rabelais (16th Century), the King James Bible (17th Century), the works of Fitz Hugh Ludlow, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo, Alexander Dumas, Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" (19th Century), and just about everything else was printed on hemp paper.
In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees would need to be cut down for it. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs.
Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp. On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, "grown from the soil," had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel.
Mechanical Engineering Magazine published an article in the 1930s, entitled "The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown," stating that if hemp was cultivated using 20th Century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world. Called the "Billion Dollar Crop," it was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars. Innovations in farm machinery would have caused an industrial revolution when applied to hemp. This single resource could have created millions of new jobs, generating thousands of products. Hemp alone, if not made illegal, would have brought America out of the Great Depression.
Cannabis extract medicines were produced by Eli Lilly, Parke-Davis, Tilden’s, Brothers Smith (Smith Brothers), Squibb and many other American and European companies and apothecaries. During all that time there was not one reported death from cannabis extract medicines, and virtually no abuse or mental disorders reported. Cannabis was America's number one analgesic for 60 years before the rediscovery of aspirin around 1900. From 1842 to 1900 cannabis made up half of all medicine sold, with virtually no fear of its high.
The word "marijuana" is a term Mexican soldiers used for cannabis which became popular in the 1930's, during a series of media and government programs which we now refer to as the 'Reefer Madness Movement.'
On October 2, 1937, the US Government passed the Marihuana Tax Act, which put a prohibitive tax on production of the "drug menace." Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products and in 1935, Sherman Williams Paint Co. testified before Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.
To grow cannabis legally, a citizen would need to purchase a special tax stamp. The government refused to release these tax stamps, thus ensuring that anyone who grew cannabis would be deemed a criminal. This was the beginning of marijuana prohibition.
Despite the rampant propaganda against "marijuana," where newspapers and federal agencies condemned cannabis as "the world's most dangerous narcotic," the US Government then began issuing the tax stamps during World War II. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, with imports of coarse fibers cut off by the Japanese, the US Department of Agriculture enacted a plan to ensure a steady supply of the world's strongest natural fiber by legally allowing Americans to grow cannabis. Marijuana, which had been outlawed as the "Assassin of Youth" just five years earlier, was then safe enough for our government to ask children of 4-H clubs to grow the nation's 1943 seed supply. Each youth was urged to grow at least half an acre, but preferably two acres of hemp for seed. The U.S. Government distributed 400,000 pounds of cannabis seeds to American farmers in 1942 to aid the war effort. Some 360,000 acres of marijuana was grown annually during World War II.
For the next forty years, the US Government denied the existence of the film, "Hemp For Victory." In 1989, independent researchers discovered two copies of it in the Library of Congress. Yet to this day, the US Government refuses to admit cannabis has any use as a medicine or resource.
YouTube copy of Hemp for Victory: http://www.youtube.com/...
Current laws against the cultivation of cannabis can be attributed to three men, Henry J. Anslinger, Lammont DuPont, and William Randolph Hearst, who helped make growing hemp illegal. Anslinger was the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, DuPont the owner of the largest chemical company, and Hearst, owner of the largest newspaper. Hearst began printing stories with headlines such as "Marijuana goads user to blood lust" and "Hotel clerk identifies Marijuana smoker as gunman." He also took advantage of the country's prejudice against blacks and immigrants by printing that marijuana-crazed Negroes were raping white women, and by publishing cartoons of lazy, pot-smoking Mexicans. Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Anslinger, head of the Drug Commission for 31 years, promoted the idea cannabis made users act extremely violent, then in the 1950s, under the Communist threat of McCarthyism, Anslinger said the exact opposite--marijuana was a danger because it will pacify soldiers into not wanting to fight.
DuPont's banker Andrew Mellon, who happened to be Secretary of the Treasury under Herbert Hoover, had his nephew-in-law Anslinger draft the Marijuana Tax Law of 1937, allowing munitions maker DuPont to supply synthetic fibers for the domestic economy without competition. DuPont is still the largest producer of man-made fibers, while no citizen has legally harvested a single acre of textile grade hemp in over 60 years. The standard fiber of world history, America's traditional crop, could provide our textiles, paper (saving trees), and be the premier source for cellulose. Corporate entities such as DuPont, Allied Chemical, Monsanto, and others are protected from competition by marijuana laws. Over 30 industrialized democracies distinguish hemp from marijuana.
The DEA's own conservative administrative law judge, Francis Young, after taking medical testimony for 15 days and reviewing hundreds of DEA/NIDA documents positioned against evidence introduced by marijuana reform activists, concluded in 1988 that "marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." Yet today, pharmaceutical corporations sell high-priced medicines of dubious value, producing severe and sometimes fatal side-effects.
History shows cannabis is something with both medicinal and commercial value, and the US Government has in the past advocated for its cultivation, yet due to the conspiring of individuals and corporate interests it's been criminalized.
Which brings us to today, and the California initiative to decriminalize it: Proposition 19. Here's the article from the September 14, Los Angeles Times about California's Proposition 19.
Law Enforcers Back Legal Pot
Legalizing marijuana would put a big dent in drug cartels and free up police, prosecutors and judges to go after violent crimes, a law enforcement group said Monday in endorsing Proposition 19, the marijuana legalization measure.
Proposition 19's passage in November would decriminalize an estimated 60,000 drug arrests made in California each year, said former Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray.
Officers would have more time to go after burglars, robbers and those committing violent assaults, he said.
On-the-job experience demonstrated the futility of trying to enforce laws prohibiting possession and use of small amounts of cannabis, Gray said at a news conference held by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a nonprofit organization supporting Proposition 19.
Gray was joined by former San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara in arguing that much money flowing to violent drug cartels comes from the illegal sale of marijuana.
Those who argue that a black market would remain aren't paying attention to history, McNamara said. After the prohibition on alcohol was repealed, bootleggers disappeared, said McNamara, now a research fellow in drug policy at Stanford University.
Proposition 19 would make it legal to grow, possess and use up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use.
It would also permit state and local governments to regulate and tax retail sales for adults 21 and older. State officials estimate passage could generate up to 1.4 billion in new tax revenue per year.
Active law enforcement groups, including the California Police Chiefs Assn., oppose the measure, saying it would increase usage and promote crime.
So the California Police Chiefs Association can just say Prop 19 would increase usage and promote crime, even though history, statistical fact, and common sense all indicate otherwise?
With this in mind, earlier this week was another article here in the Santa Barbara News Press, which over the past couple years has, in my opinion, become an a right-wing advertisement for corporate interests. Yet this same item, showed up on Huffington Post (which some may argue is a left-wing advertisement for corporate interests). Whatever you think, the same item ran in both places.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A coalition of medical marijuana advocates came out Tuesday against a California ballot initiative that would legalize the drug for recreational use and tax its sales.
Proposition 19 would inadvertently harm the most vulnerable patients by allowing local governments to prohibit the sale and purchase of marijuana in their jurisdictions, California Cannabis Association members said.
At a gathering outside the Capitol, the group predicted many cities and counties would impose such bans if voters approve the initiative, leaving local medical marijuana users with few options.
"The people who would be most affected are the sick, the elderly – patients who cannot grow their own and cannot travel to pick up a prescription," said Amir Daliri, president of Cascade Wellness Center, a medical marijuana dispensary north of Chico.
Supporters of Proposition 19 said it explicitly protects the rights of patients and would provide them with safer and easier access to the drug by creating a strictly controlled, clearly defined legal system for pot cultivation, distribution and sales.
"Proposition 19 is actually going to further clarify that sales of medical cannabis are legal in this state," said Dale Sky Jones, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 19 campaign. "The intent of our law is to protect medical cannabis patients and their rights."
If Proposition 19 passes in November, California would become the first state to legalize and regulate recreational pot use. Adults could possess up to one ounce of the drug.
Supporters have targeted two areas of concern for voters: the economy and crime. Legalized pot would bring much-needed revenue to the state and reduce the influence of drug cartels, they said.
The measure was endorsed Tuesday by the largest labor union in the state. The Service Employees International Union, which has 700,000 members, said revenue generated by the initiative would help California preserve jobs and avoid cuts to key services such as education and health care.
The union represents workers in health care, building services and state and local government.
Critics question the economic effects and contend the initiative will simply serve to boost marijuana usage and drug-related crimes.
A Field Poll released in July found 48 percent of likely voters opposed the measure, while 44 percent supported it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
If you happen to visit the HuffPost link you find dozens of comments like this:
These are profit-motive only dispensary owners, trying to scare people out of competition. They know damn well that there's nothing in prop19 that amends or contradicts prop 215. If you've read the Mower decision, these swindlers true motivation is as glaring as it is galling.
and this:
Sounds like someone's trying to protect their street corner. They're just upset because legalizing it would make their outrageous pricing a thing of the past. I'd be upset, too, if a $400 ounce dropped to $100-200 and people could start growing their own.
and this:
The prices for medical mj are so inflated in southern California it's no wonder these people would oppose it - they're the ones ripping us off in the first place!!! I stopped going to one dispensary just for the fact that I saw a guy walk in on a cane, he could barely see and all he said was - "I have 35 dollars I need some relief." All they would sell him is a half an 1/8th because there was no medicine for him at $35. It's a huge ripoff. For those who don't know that half an 1/8th probably helped that guy out for about a week or maybe less depending on what kind of pain he was in. There is no compassion in these dispensaries and they might be even worse than your illegal pot dealer - they're organized and greedy!
and this:
These people make me vomit. Prop 19 is not going to do away with prop 215. It's simply taking it to the next level. These are simply growers trying to protect their money. Well screw them!!! jerks. They made money off of something illegal for a long time, then jumped on the medical bandwagon, and now they just want to keep themselves in the dough, while the rest of us suffer from it being illegal.
But then there was this comment:
Can anyone provide me with more information on the "California Cannabis Association"? The only record I can find for them existing anywhere is in this exact Associated Press story, where they are advocating AGAINST cannabis legalization. Are these people for real?
Is it here that we have an instance of what the Supreme Court ruling on corporate speech in part means? That corporate interests can create some shell group like California Cannabis Association, make an argument in their interests, and get it in the papers/blogs to frame the issue?
And then the poll mentioned: what did the pollsters ask those polled? Did they mention historical facts? Did they mention what the positive effects of decriminalization would be?
I found the poll results hard to believe, and so wanted to get a sample of data myself. I happen to work in a place in which we have contact with medical doctors, and patients of all ages. I started asking, telling folks I was doing some political science research. I informed them of Prop 19, gave some historical background, some statistics, and then asked if they were in favor of decriminalization.
I've asked close to 30 people over the past few days--from blue collar to white collar, from elderly, middle-aged, to young--and have had one single person say they're against Prop 19 (three undecided). The vast majority were for it, some indignant that it's even a question of whether or not to decriminalize cannabis, not to mention the societal hypocrisy in that alcohol is legal, and arguably far more dangerous to life, limb, property, and social costs.
Electronic Voting
Here in California, like most states, we've had our counties flooded with electronic voting machines. The tallying of votes is on proprietary source code, meaning we have to take it on faith that corporate interests are tallying and recording votes accurately.
Is it really so unreasonable to think corporate interests will simply manufacture news items and quotes to frame an issue and indicate more against than in favor, thus swaying public opinion? Then rig the vote via electronic voting (and if you don't know the brief history of electronic voting and the forces behind it, then please do hold your breath on this point [the more you know about it--who owns the machines, the type of people involved, the type actions already displayed by them, it's really not outlandish conspiracy theory--especially since the actions to steal The Vote go way back in history, and that the advent of electronic machines did not somehow make that problem go away]), then have corporate media "certify" the election by never questioning the outcome, or doing any in depth investigation to question the results?
Please don’t take this as tooting my own horn, I’m not, but back in 2003 I joined Daily Kos specifically to raise awareness of The Help America Vote Act, and how it was flooding the country with voting machines, and that the logical consequence of that would be for corporate and private interests to frame an issue, subvert the vote, and the morning after have the media and community scratching our heads like, "Gee, how did we vote that one away, when all reason and logic showed it was against our interests?"
Whatever your thoughts are on those questions, based on all the information before us, and how decriminalization of cannabis presents problems for corporate interests (not to mention those who benefit from a police state), do you think Proposition 19 will pass in California?