Gender Equality Is Not Achievable - Ever
(Click)

War on Drugs - Pros And Cons The war on drugs has to be one of the most nasty and vindictive of policies ever imposed on ordinary people by their own governments. It is an absolute curse inflicted upon our societies by politicians who seem to have no interest in the welfare of their own people. There are no pros when it comes to the war on drugs; only cons. Keeping certain drugs illegal has created a vast underworld of criminality and it has been responsible for the wholesale corruption of hundreds of thousands of state officials. Almost every category of serious crime contains a high proportion of perpetrators who, in some way or another, have indulged in criminal acts as a consequence of the illegality of drugs. Because certain desirable drugs are illegal ... ... terrorists manage to arm themselves with expensive dangerous weaponry - and so do nations wishing to get their hands on weaponry which is denied to them through official channels ... organised crime syndicates and thousands of smaller gangs of criminals descend into the underworld to pursue their criminal drug activities and then they also get involved in even more crime! - thus creating channels and resources for other types of crime - prostitution, gun-running, robbery, people-smuggling etc ... young boys, particularly those who have no hope of achieving very much because of their circumstances or their lack of abilities are tempted easily into drugs dealing in order to 'make something of themselves' - or to fund their own drug habits. And it is worth pointing out that some 15% of young men and boys in the population have intelligence levels that are pretty low! They often - especially when young - cannot see the full implications of getting involved with drugs. ... millions of people who take drugs develop anti-government sentiments and/or are susceptible to being blackmailed and/or corrupted. These also include very powerful people - ranging from police officers to politicians - whom societies simply cannot afford to have blackmailed or corrupted.  ... Many thousands of people end up in prison or being processed through the criminal justice system - which costs us a fortune. Not only do we pay for them while they are inside prisons, we also lose the value of their labours and turn them into unproductive burdens on society. And, oftentimes, this leaves their loved ones on the outside having to fend for themselves. For every father in a prison cell, there is a child without a father - and the statistics show quite clearly what bad effects this has on children and on society as a whole. The drugs war is an absolute disaster. It causes far more harm than good. And there are many other effective ways of combating drug abuse. Ooops. I forgot to mention the most important thing about the War on Drugs ... The darned thing doesn't work! And it hasn't worked for half a century! So, why on Earth do we maintain this completely catastrophic drugs war? Well, what follows is partially the answer to this question. For the moment, just imagine a politician called ADP. He thumps the table and he says, "There is far too much crime in our society. We need to lock up the criminals and give them long sentences. We need to get them off the streets. We need to come down hard on drugs users, and put them into prison cells. Etc Etc Etc." Well, you get the picture of this man. Now, let's just see who benefits by promoting and supporting ADP's agenda and who is prepared to fund his campaign for office. 1. "We need more money for our prisons! We need to lock up more people," says ADP - and so those who work in the huge prison service industry will vote for him. Of course they will! More funding for them. More benefits for them. And notice that those in the prison services may well not even be wanting particularly to vote to maintain the war on drugs. These people may just be voting for more funds to go into the prison service. A very noble aim. But the point is that when they vote for ADP, they are also voting to maintain the war on drugs.  2. "We need more policemen on our streets!", says ADP - and so everybody who feels the same way because they have a fear of crime will vote for him. And by voting for ADP, these people are ALSO voting for the war on drugs - even though they may not wish to. In other words, because people fear crime, they will vote for ADP who is tough on crime. And the fact that ADP also wants to maintain the drugs war may just be incidental to this. 3. The big construction companies that build and maintain the prisons will also 'vote' for ADP. And they will do this with their dollars - perhaps by contributing to ADP's campaign funds. Of course they will do this. They want to get more government contracts to build and maintain more prisons. And there is certainly nothing morally wrong in this at all. But, by voting for ADP and promoting his campaign with their dollars, they are also promoting the war on drugs. 4. "Citizens must be able to protect themselves from criminals. They must have guns!" says ADP. And so the gun industry, quite legitimately, will support ADP's campaign with its huge amount of dollars. And those citizens who want to bear arms will also vote for ADP. This is all very legitimate. But by voting for ADP, they are voting to maintain the war on drugs.  5. "We must hand out more money to the justice system. We have to prosecute criminals as best as we can," says ADP. And the lawyers and the judges and the customs officers and the police will all agree with ADP. After all, they are all having a tough time dealing with all the cases, and they are very under-resourced. And so they will vote for ADP, who is arguing for more resources to help them in their fight against crime. But by voting for ADP, they are also voting to maintain the war on drugs. 6. "Illegal drugs are bad for you," says ADP - and all the pharmaceutical companies will agree. And they will agree to the tune of thousands of dollars. Why? Because if people, for example, are smoking pot to keep themselves cool and happy, they might well not use the legal drugs that the pharmaceutical companies would prefer them to use. And so ADP will get handsome funding for his cause from the legitimate drugs companies. 7. And, for the very same reasons, the tobacco companies and the alcohol industry would just love to see ADP rise very high in political office. They most certainly do not want people to turn away from the addictive but legal drugs that they are most happy to provide them with. For example, the more that people smoke pot, the less are they likely to drink alcohol. Indeed, the alcohol industry seems to be one of the biggest contributors when it comes to keeping the drugs war alive. And, of course, many religious organisations and 'therapists' of various sorts would much rather that your money went on those concerned with prayer and therapy in order to keep those blues away. All these groups will manage to convince thousands more people to vote for ADP. 8. And then, of course, in the case of marijuana there are all those industries which would just hate to see hemp being grown legally (e.g. see HEMP section below) No way are they going to support the legalisation of marijuana ! And so their money and their votes will also go to ADP. 9. There are some 300 billion illegal drug dollars every year being laundered through the banking system. If this money was to dry up, the banks would not have enough collateral to continue handing out all their loans, e.g. see Taking that into account and given steady accumulation of wealth by the world criminal fraternity, the amounts of money involved in drug investments could be as much as $1 trillion, and The illegal trade in narcotics is estimated to be worth more than 400 billion dollars a year. If all drugs became legal, the banks would have to rein in their activities very significantly. No way would they want this to happen, and so they will give their support to ADP. 10. The drugs barons themselves would also be crazy not to support ADP with their dollars - or even, perhaps, by tainting his political opponents in some way. If drugs were legalised they would lose their multi-million dollar businesses overnight! 11. And how would governments and their secret services be able to fund their illicit covert operations without turning a blind eye to the drug dealing that they do themselves or that is being done on their behalf? Across the entire world, the very illegality of drugs ensures that those who want a lot of money and power can get them both! And they can do this without paying any taxes on their dealings! They too will support ADP - somehow. 12. It is a well-known political ploy for politicians to frighten people so that they can then offer to protect them in some way. Even the Mafia do this sort of thing. It is called a 'protection racket'. And so ADP is using a well-tried effective tactic for gaining the support of people.  And so it is that the ADPs of this world get into office and so maintain one of the most barbaric and destructive policies of the past 100 years. There are enormous numbers of people who will support ADP. And there are many powerful organisations that will do exactly the same. Most of these people are not bad people. Most of these organisations are not bad organisations. And ADP is not a bad person. But, collectively, they are manufacturing a climate and providing huge resources to maintain a situation that does tremendous harm to our societies. And, quite simply, they are mostly doing this in order to feather their own nests in their own particular necks of the woods. And who can blame them? But this is why a man like ADP gets voted into office. He has huge support! But the drugs war that he maintains does not do his people any good at all. Of course, there should be a 'war on drugs'. But it should be conducted through education and treatment, not through persecution, prosecution and incarceration. If we took this alternative route we could cut crime significantly and also divert huge resources into programs that were more involved in caring for people than in hurting them. And, further, what could be more stupid than handing over to those very 'types' who are prepared to be SERIOUS criminals such huge resources with which to empower themselves!? - i.e. with the huge profits from selling illegal drugs. If we want to disempower serious criminals then one of the best ways is to remove their sources of power! Duh! If all drugs were legalised tomorrow, what calamities would befall us? Surely, at the worst, the number of 'addicts' would grow? Well, so what? OK. So we would have to employ far more health workers, doctors and nurses. We would also have to provide more education and more treatment centres. And we would probably have to fund more research. Would this be such a catastrophe - especially given that, on balance, we would actually end up saving so many resources from the ensuing reduction in crime? As a society, what do we want, more police officers and lawyers, or more doctors and nurses? More prisons or more hospitals? More crimes on the streets, or more people receiving help, education and treatment? ADP is not the man that we should vote for. Also see ...  The Governing Elite The Evils of Cannabis Important Medical Research Halted In both studies, the THC (from marijuana) shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects. Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000. The American Medical Marijuana Association "In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice – lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia. The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research ..." Prosecuting The Sick Chemotherapy for cancer racked Carter Singleton's 6-foot, 230-pound frame. The 65-year-old Mount Healthy man couldn't eat; food tasted like sawdust. He lost 80 pounds in five months. He was so weak he could barely move. Then a friend suggested he try pot.

02/02/03 Highlights of dissenting opinions judges have shared publicly: Federal Judge Richard Neville, of Chicago; March 1996 told USA Today, "the markup on illegal drugs and their enormous profits to sellers create ten replacements for every offender thrown in prison. No matter how many we put in jail, that isn't going to change." U.S. Magistrate Peter Nimkoff of Miami resigned from the bench due to the relentless erosion of rights and the governmental abuses which he daily confronted. In a press conference in 1986 he said, "There are two constitutions - one for criminal cases generally and another for drug cases," which, "invites police officers to behave like criminals. And they do." The Miami Herald did not cover this resignation or the press conference. Federal Judge Richard Posner, told USA Today, "It is nonsense that we should be devoting so many law-enforcement resources to marijuana. I am skeptical of a society that is so tolerant of alcohol and cigarettes should come down so hard on marijuana use and send people to prison for life without parole... Prison terms in America have become appallingly long, especially for conduct that, arguably, should not be criminal at all . . . Only decriminalization is a sure route to a lower crime rate . . ." Federal Judge George Pratt of the 2nd Circuit said of police searches in the Buffalo, N.Y. airport, "It appears that they have sacrificed the Fourth Amendment by detaining 590 innocent people in order to arrest 10 who are not - all in the name of the 'war on drugs.' When, pray tell, will it end? Where are we going?" (To Reason Magazine, February 1994) Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, defied the federal mandatory sentence by giving a drug offender a 13 month sentence, instead of the mandated 10 or more years. Judge Robert W. Sweet, District Judge in New York City; served as an Assistant US Attorney and as Deputy Mayor of New York City under John Lindsay; a graduate of Yale and of Yale Law School. "Congress should end the criminalization of marijuana, which is now widely acknowledged to be without deleterious effect. That reform alone would take 450,000 arrests out of the system." US District Judge Vaughn Walker, of San Francisco contends that decriminalization is the key to solving our nation's current drug problem. Federal Judge Jack Weinstein, of Brooklyn, has refused to take drug cases because he opposes mandatory minimum sentences. He said that he had a, "sense of depression about much of the cruelty I have been party to in connection with the war on drugs." US District Judge Thomas Wiseman, quoted in The Tennessean, "We've just about lost a generation of young people. We're building new prison beds at the rate of about 1000 a week and we're still overcrowded... We've spent $100 billion on the war on drugs and we're losing it." Also see detailed statements by many other US judges here.

12/10/.03 UK Police demanded new controls last night to combat soaring levels of gun crime, which senior officers described as 'a cancer' spreading across Britain. Ah yes. Gun crime in the UK. Both caused and perpetually fuelled by the illegality of certain drugs. And what do the police want? More powers! And so what will the criminals want? More guns! And then what will the police want. More powers! And so what will the criminals want? The solution is sooooooooooooooooo simple. Stop the war on drugs. And stop these dangerous and destructive organisms from growing. Oh look! Yet another benefit of the war on drugs ... UK Switching to the highly addictive drug has made many prostitutes so desperate for their next fix that they have lowered their prices. Drug workers in Hull say dozens of teenagers are now offering sex for as little as £5 in order to feed their crack habit. In London's King's Cross, dozens of women offer passing men unprotected sex for £10 - the price of a single rock in the capital. Lots of sexy teenage lovelies available for sexual services at a very reasonable price. Oh yes indeed. The war on drugs provides such good value!

War On Terror?  It's As Bad As War on Drugs  Ron Paul CounterPunch I would like to draw an analogy between the drug war and the war against terrorism. In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens. Another result of this unwise war has been the corruption of many law enforcement officials. It is well known that with the profit incentives so high, we are not even able to keep drugs out of our armed prisons. Making our whole society a prison would not bring success to this floundering war on drugs. Sinister motives of the profiteers and gangsters, along with prevailing public ignorance, keep this futile war going. Illegal and artificially high priced drugs drive the underworld to produce, sell and profit from this social depravity. Failure to recognize that drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease rather than a crime, encourage the drug warriors in efforts that have not and will not ever work. We learned the hard way about alcohol prohibition and crime, but we have not yet seriously considered it in the ongoing drug war. Corruption associated with the drug dealers is endless. It has involved our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system. It has affected government policy and our own CIA. The artificially high profits from illegal drugs provide easy access to funds for rogue groups involved in fighting civil wars throughout the world. Ironically, opium sales by the Taliban and artificially high prices helped to finance their war against us. In spite of the incongruity, we rewarded the Taliban this spring with a huge cash payment for promises to eradicate some poppy fields. Sure. For the first 140 years of our history, we had essentially no Federal war on drugs, and far fewer problems with drug addiction and related crimes was a consequence. In the past 30 years, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the drug war, little good has come of it. We have vacillated from efforts to stop the drugs at the source to severely punishing the users, yet nothing has improved. This war has been behind most big government policy powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy. Those who support the IRS's efforts to collect maximum revenues and root out the underground economy, have welcomed this intrusion, even if the drug underworld grows in size and influence. The drug war encourages violence. Government violence against nonviolent users is notorious and has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation. Innocent taxpayers are forced to pay for all this so-called justice. Our eradication project through spraying around the world, from Colombia to Afghanistan, breeds resentment because normal crops and good land can be severely damaged. Local populations perceive that the efforts and the profiteering remain somehow beneficial to our own agenda in these various countries. Drug dealers and drug gangs are a consequence of our unwise approach to drug usage. Many innocent people are killed in the crossfire by the mob justice that this war generates. But just because the laws are unwise and have had unintended consequences, no excuses can ever be made for the monster who would kill and maim innocent people for illegal profits. But as the violent killers are removed from society, reconsideration of our drug laws ought to occur. A similar approach should be applied to our war on those who would terrorize and kill our people for political reasons. If the drug laws and the policies that incite hatred against the United States are not clearly understood and, therefore, never changed, the number of drug criminals and terrorists will only multiply. Although this unwise war on drugs generates criminal violence, the violence can never be tolerated. Even if repeal of drug laws would decrease the motivation for drug dealer violence, this can never be an excuse to condone the violence. On the short term, those who kill must be punished, imprisoned, or killed. Long term though, a better understanding of how drug laws have unintended consequences is required if we want to significantly improve the situation and actually reduce the great harms drugs are doing to our society. The same is true in dealing with those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us. Without some understanding of what has brought us to the brink of a worldwide conflict in reconsidering our policies around the globe, we will be no more successful in making our land secure and free than the drug war has been in removing drug violence from our cities and towns. Without some understanding why terrorism is directed towards the United States, we may well build a prison for ourselves with something called homeland security while doing nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon. We have promoted a foolish and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism. Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open mind and understanding.  Rep Ron Paul is a libertarian/Republican who represents Texas's 14th congressional district.

July 2003 The Drug War Helps Terrorists  Scott McPherson The Future of Freedom Foundation The U.S. government has become quite accustomed over the years to orchestrating world events to fit its own agenda. In our name, the government keeps American troops in more than half the countries of the globe, openly supports brutal regimes, and uses its intelligence agencies to manipulate the policies of foreign governments. But no matter how hard it tries, the play never seems to unfold as scripted. Still, it is in the name of the “war on drugs” that the United States truly excels in showing how poorly equipped it is to act as director of international affairs. Since the 1970s, administration after administration has sought to enlist foreign nations in its jihad against arbitrarily prohibited, but nonetheless popular, recreational drugs. The results have often been quite similar to the U.S. experience, with widespread corruption of police, judges, and politicians; gang wars and drive-by shootings; and a general increase in drug use. Yet America’s “war on drugs” manages to escape the shame of one of its most horrific consequences: the destruction of thousands of lives in this and other countries. For the drug war has led to the enrichment and expansion of vicious terrorist groups around the world, even the one responsible for the horrible attacks of 9/11. Sadly, the government continues to ignore the warning signs and feeds the mouth that bites us all. Heavily influential for more than 20 years, “narco-terrorist” organizations are a conglomeration of leftist rebels, international terrorist rings, arms dealers, and the drug cartels themselves. In Beyond the War on Drugs: Overcoming a Failed Public Policy, author Steven Wisotsky pointed out more than a decade ago that “the War on Drugs has seriously undermined the power and stability of the central governments [of Peru and Colombia], delivering effectual control of large regions … to … alliances of drug traffickers and guerrilla armies.” In short, to terrorists. How is this possible? Thanks to the massive profits they derive from the illegal drug trade, “narco-terrorists” are able to buy control of anything they need to sustain their business. In the “large regions” where they rule, they serve as the de facto government, supplying schools, sports teams, and security to local peasants. With the support of indigenous farmers, they grow coca and opium with impunity, raising incredible sums of money to finance their terrorist activities and, worse, create the conditions for international cooperation with other terrorist groups, a fact made clear by a recent anti-terrorism report that showed Hezbollah training camps in the “tri-border region” of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. The connection between drugs and terrorism is not exactly the world’s best-kept secret. In March 2002, in a statement before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government, Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.) reported that “opium production in Afghanistan [under the Taliban] accounted for 72 percent of production worldwide” and was used to “shelter Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda terrorists.” He similarly indicated that bin Laden “provided protection to heroin-processing labs, was a part owner in numerous labs, [and] part owner of one load shipped to the U.S.” Even a casual knowledge of economics is enough to understand that, rather than hurting the drug trade, the drug war is its greatest boon. The popularity of drugs alone is sufficient to drive up price through intense demand. Any effect that interdicting or limiting the supply of a given drug may have will merely be to raise the price it brings on the market even further, meaning larger profits to those who deal in drugs. And in the Latin American and radical Islamic countries where the dealers are typically terrorists, that means more money for terrorism. Even the Office of National Drug Control Policy inadvertently admitted the effect of its own policies by broadcasting national advertisements telling people who use drugs that they are supporting terrorism. If helping to put money in the pockets of drug dealers is akin to aiding terrorist causes, then by continuing to drive up the price of drugs the U.S. government is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. The “war on drugs” might possibly go down in history as the worst domestic policy blunder in American history. After more than 30 years of fighting, the cost in lives, infringements on our liberty, dollars, and the erosion of our social and moral fabric, and the impact on law-enforcement and political institutions may never be fully known. Adding insult to injury, in all the years that the government has been battling to make people stop using drugs, it has been helping to enrich those who wish to wage terrorist wars against innocent people everywhere.

HEMP Hemp has been grown for at least 12,000 years for fiber (textiles and paper) and seed (food and fuel). It has been effectively prohibited in the United States since the 1950s. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper. Because of its importance for sails (the word ‘canvass’ is rooted in ‘cannabis’) and rope for ships, hemp was a required crop in the American colonies. Hemp was grown commercially (with increasing government interference) in the United States until the 1950s. It was doomed by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which placed an extremely high tax and made it effectively impossible to grow industrial hemp. While congress expressly expected the continued production of industrial hemp, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics lumped industrial hemp with marijuana, as its successor the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), does to this day. Industrial hemp and marijuana are both classified by taxonomists as Cannabis sativa L., a species with hundreds of varieties. Cannabis sativa L. is a member of the mulberry family. Industrial hemp varieties are bred to maximize fiber, and/or seed, while marijuana varieties seek to maximize THC (delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) through several budding sites for its flowers and leaves. While industrial hemp and marijuana may look somewhat alike to the untrained eye, an easily trained eye can easily distinguish the difference. No one would want to smoke industrial hemp. Industrial hemp has a THC content of between 0.05 and 1%. Marijuana has a THC content of 3% to 20%. To receive a standard psychoactive dose would require a person to ‘power-smoke’ 10-12 hemp cigarettes over a very short period of time. The large volume, high temperature of vapor, gas and smoke would be difficult for a person to withstand, much less enjoy. If one tried to ingest enough industrial hemp to get a buzz, it would be the equivalent of taking 2-3 doses of a high-fiber laxative. No marijuana grower would hide marijuana plants in a hemp field. Marijuana is grown widely spaced to maximize flowers and leaves; hemp is grown tightly-spaced to maximize stalk and is usually harvested before it goes to seed. It is also the first place where law enforcement officials would look. If hemp does pollinate any nearby marijuana, genetically, the results will always be lower-THC marijuana and will contain unwanted seeds. When hemp is grown, nearby marijuana growers will be upset due to the pollination by hemp fields; thus causing marijuana growers to flee the area or grow indoors under lab-like conditions (to keep pollen outside). When U.S. sources of ‘Manila hemp’ (not true hemp; rather sisal and jute) was cut off by the Japanese in World War II, the U.S. Army and U.S. Department of Agriculture promoted the “Hemp for Victory” campaign to grow hemp in the U.S. While the original ‘gruel’ was made of hemp seed meal, hemp oil and seed can be made into tasty and nutritional products. [Recipe for Hemp Seed Porridge] At a volume level of 81%, hemp oil is the richest known source of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids (the ‘good’ fats). It is quite high in some essential amino acids, including gamma linoleic acid (GLA), a very rare nutrient also found in mother’s milk. Hemp can be made into quality papers. the long fibers in hemp allow such paper to be recycled several more times than wood-based papers. Because of its low lignin content, hemp can be pulped using less energy and chemicals than wood requires, resulting in less pollution and energy consumption. Its natural whiteness can obviate the need to use chlorine bleach, which means no extremely toxic dioxin being dumped into streams. Rather, when required, hemp can be whitened with hydrogen peroxide. Therefore, hemp paper is acid-free, which can last 1,500 years. Wood-based papers have a shelf life of 25-100 years. Kimberly-Clark (a Fortune 500 company) has a mill in France which produces hemp paper preferred for bibles and cigarette paper because it lasts a long time and doesn’t yellow. Construction products such as medium density fiberboard (MDF), oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts can be made out of hemp. Because of hemp’s long fibers (bundles of 7 feet long can be common), the products will be stronger and/or lighter than those made from wood (a Douglas fir tree’s fiber is at best 3/4 inch long). Hemp can yield 3-8 dry tons of fiber per acre. This is four times what an average forest can yield. The products that can be made from hemp number over 25,000. Hemp grows well in a variety of climates and soil types. It is naturally resistant to most pests, precluding the need for pesticides. It grows tightly spaced, out-competing any weeds, so herbicides are not necessary. It also leaves a weed-free field for the following crop. A 1938 Popular Mechanics article described hemp as a “New Billion Dollar Crop.” Hemp can be made into variety of fabrics, including linen quality. Hemp can displace cotton which is grown with massive amounts of chemicals harmful to people and the environment. fifty percent of the world’s pesticides are sprayed on cotton. “Cotton, the natural fiber;” think again. Hemp fibers are longer, stronger, more absorbent, and more mildew-resistant than cotton. The original Levi Strauss jeans made for the Sierra gold miners were made of hemp sailcloth. Fabrics made of at least fifty percent hemp block the sun’s harmful UV rays more effectively than other fabrics. Hemp can displace wood fiber and save forests for watershed, wildlife habitat, recreation and oxygen production, carbon sequestration (reduces global warming), and other values. Many of the varieties of hemp that were grown in North America have been lost. Seed banks were not maintained. New genetic breeding will be necessary using both foreign and ‘ditch weed,’ strains of hemp that went feral after cultivation ended. Various state national guard units often spend their weekends trying to eradicate this hemp, in the mistaken belief they are helping stop drug use. Henry Ford experimented with hemp to build car bodies and interiors. He wanted to both build and fuel cars from farm products. [See Popular Mechanics “Pinch Hitters for Defense.”] BMW is experimenting with hemp materials in automobiles as part of an effort to make cars more recyclable. Seeking to put more environment-friendly materials in its cars, Daimler-Benz may replace fiberglass matte with industrial hemp. [See Popular Mechanics “Putting Cannabis Into Cars.”] Rudolph Diesel designed his namesake engine to run on vegetable oils, including hempseed oil. Hempseed oil once greased machines. Most paint, resins, shellacs, and varnishes used to be made out of linseed (from flax) and hempseed oils. Much of the bird seed sold in the United States has hempseed (it’s sterilized before importation), the hulls of which contain about 25% protein of which is more easily digestible than soybean protein. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) classifies all Cannabis sativa L. varieties as ‘marijuana.’ While it is theoretically possible to get permission from the government to grow hemp, DEA would require that the field to be secured by fence, razor, wire, dogs, guards, and lights, making it cost-prohibitive. The U.S. State Department must certify each year that a foreign nation is cooperating in the war on drugs. The European Union subsidizes its farmers to grow industrial hemp. Those nations are not on this list, because the U.S. State Department distinguishes the difference between hemp and marijuana. Over 30 industrialized democracies do distinguish hemp from marijuana. International treaties regarding marijuana make an exception for hemp, and trade alliances such as NAFTA allow for the importation of hemp. from Globalhemp.com Also see The Weed That Could Change The World

Ten Reasons To Legalise Drugs 1. Legalizing drugs would make our streets and homes safer. 2. It would put an end to prison overcrowding. 3. It would free up police resources to fight crimes against people and property. 4. It would unclog the court system. 5. It would reduce official corruption. 6. It would save tax money. 7. It would cripple organized crime and terrorist groups. 8. Legal drugs would be safer. 9. Legalization would help stem the spread of AIDS and other diseases. 10. It would curtail the increasing erosion of personal liberty. So why do we maintain the War on Drugs despite the enormous misery that it inflicts on so many people?

Mexico Mexican Congressman Gregorio Urias Germann delivered a stinging indictment of the Mexican and U.S. governments in his keynote speech at the drug legalization summit here today. Systematic corruption in the highest offices of government is what makes global narco-trafficking possible he said. Urias insisted that this endemic corruption is what stifles congressional debate throughout the Americas. USA If helping to put money in the pockets of drug dealers is akin to aiding terrorist causes, then by continuing to drive up the price of drugs the U.S. government is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. Scott McPherson UK Houses made from cannabis are far stronger and cheaper than conventional buildings, says South African innovator Andre du Plessis. UK During the 1980s, BAT - which manufactures cigarettes - was so concerned that it would lose market share to illegal drugs that it examined strategies to give its products a more 'rebellious' image. The previously undisclosed internal presentation made to BAT shows that the company had become concerned that the drugs market could eat into its profits and discussed a number of ways to arrest the possible slide. Written in 1985 by a senior BAT adviser, David Creighton, the document, entitled 'Structured Creativity Group Presentation', predicted that in the future cigarettes would face 'competition with cannabis, glue-sniffing and possibly hard drugs - heroin and cocaine'.