|
 |
|
|---|
DUMB THINGS OUR NARCOTICS POLICE SAY . .
Courtesy of our States Narcotics Police, Oklahoma has now become the laughing stock of our nation. One look at their own “Official Oklahoma State” website quickly shows why. In the words of Russ Belville [1A]
“Police say some of the dumbest things about marijuana, but this official “Fact Sheet” on cannabis from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs Control wins the award for Exceptional Lies, Ignorance, and Propaganda in (the) Service of Prohibition.”Here look at what our State Narcotics police are saying about the use of Medicinal Cannabis (Medical Marihuana), right on their own website:[1]
The cannabis sativa plant material, marijuana, has been used as a drug for centuries. It originally was used for the treatment of various mental and physical ailments. But after close examination, the Food and Drug Administration in 1937 declared it to be without medical utility and removed it from the market place. The new marijuana in the market place is not the 1 percent to 2 percent THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the psychoactive ingredient that produces the "high". Today's new cultivation methods are producing a drug with up to 30 percent THC, or 3,000 percent higher than the old 1960's-1980's available marijuana. Some people argue marijuana should be legalized for both medical and recreational use. But medical studies show how dangerous this idea would be. New data has shown that marijuana smoke has a higher concentration of carcinogenic substances than tobacco smoke. It is linked as a cause of lung problems such as bronchitis and emphysema, and studies confirm damage to brain cells, nerve cells and reproductive organs which have lead to still births and birth defects. In addition, acute memory loss and lowered immune systems also have been traced to marijuana smoking. Plus, surveys indicate that about 33 percent of all patients in emergency rooms test positive for either alcohol or marijuana in their systems. Street names for marijuana include: pot, weed, Mary Jane, dope, grass, hash, hashish, joint, and gange. |
|---|
CORRECTING THE DIS-INFOMRATION:
With mis-information like that above, it is little wonder that Oklahoma is quickly becoming the laughing stock of all the states. As already stated one website even goes as far as to say:
"This is your Oklahoma police on drugs "And while I for one (as an Oklahoma resident) would think that these statements go a bit too far, still the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics Fact Sheet does indeed show quite a bit of ignorance on their part regarding the subject of Medicinal Marihuana. Yes that and (indeed, they have crossed the line) in some cases some out and out (ah, let's call them) untruthful statements.
"Police say some of the dumbest things about marijuana, but this official “Fact Sheet” on cannabis from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs Control wins the award for Exceptional Lies, Ignorance, and Propaganda in Service of Prohibition. "
Perhaps it would be best to go over their Fact Sheet (directly as stated by the Okla. narc's on their own website), piece by piece and point out what the technical problems are. (OK, problem, after problem, after problem, so let’s just go over everything one piece at a time.)
MARIJUANA FACT SHEETWhile none of the above is a lie (and here we should be thankful for some historical truths), still it is interesting to note the phrase, “as marijuana was earlier known.” Why the silence about exactly how and why the name change came about? Nor is there any mention of WHO were the “Brown Skin Marijuana’s”?
"Cannabis Sativa L. is a species of tall annual woody shrub with male or female flowers borne on separate plants. Cannabis grows wild in most of the temperate and tropic regions of the world. Hemp, (as marijuana was earlier known), was grown in the News England colonies and used in making cloth and cordage. "
"The cannabis sativa plant material, marijuana, has been used as a drug for centuries. "Actually, Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) has been in use for thousands upon thousands of years. It was used by the ancient Chinese, Assyrians, Hindus, Egyptians etc. In fact the Ebers papyrus scroll (1500 BC) which is the oldest complete medical textbook known, makes mention of its use as do Hindu writings. [2] [3] But still we shouldn’t nit-pick, “centuries” is a good enough term.
"It originally was used for the treatment of various mental and physical ailments."So far no actual lies, but it should be mentioned that prior to the Reefer Madness (dis-information) campaign, that Cannabis medicines were as common as aspirin is today. Our own museum has documented well over two thousand (pre-1937 meaning legal) Medical Cannabis medicines, which sold in this country under their own distinct brand or trade names. [4]
"But after close examination, the Food and Drug Administration in 1937 declared it to be without medical utility and removed it from the market place."Ok, this is where the main problems start up; -- this statement is just so untrue. Let’s go over this statement in more detail:
FIRST the FDA (the Federal Food and Drug Administration) DID NOT remove Medical Marihuana from the market place in 1937. In fact Medicinal Marihuana was legal (by a doctor's prescription and in some cases over the counter) up until 1970. As proof we present (see below) the following documents (selected at random from our museum archives which are quite extensive).
Click on Image to view documents:
In addition, by using the Marihuana Tax Act (which required ALL manufacturers, retailers etc., to register), we can trace (what we believe to be) legal manufacturing and sale of Medical Marihuana medicines all the way up until the 1970’s.
NEXT, their statement also reads “. . the Food and Drug Administration in 1937 declared it (Medical Cannabis Medicines) to be without medical utility. . “ Implying that this as a fact. This is both figuratively as well as literally untrue.
Granted TODAY if you wish to bring a medical product to market, the FDA can deny approval based on safety AS WELL AS EFFICIENCY concerns. However, ALL medicines that were in place (being sold) between the passage of the Federal “Pure Food and Drug Act” of 1906 (taking effect on Jan. 1, 1907) and the passage of the Federal “Pure Food and Drug and Cosmetics Act” of 1938 were automatically “Grandfathered” in.
At a later time the FDA was given authority to remove “Grandfathered” drugs but ONLY over safety concerns. In other words, nothing that would have affected the status of Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) products. [5]
ALL of which means that it would have been impossible for the FDA (the Federal Food and Drug Administration) to have OFFICIALLY taken Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) medicines OFF THE MARKET; As well as made the claim that it was “WITHOUT MEDICAL UTILITY”. They simply didn’t have the legal authority to do so.
IN addition (in case there are any doubting Thomas’s out there), as the book of Thessalonians says, “Test everything that is said, and hold on to what is good.” So if anyone out there is saying something different (e.g. the Okla. Narc’s) then let them provide us with proof of what they are saying. Give us the law, or the regulation, or whatever where this takes place. They won’t be able to do so because it just didn’t happen.
Their site then goes on to state:
"The new marijuana in the market place is not the 1 percent to 2 percent THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the psychoactive ingredient that produces the "high".This above statement, may or may not, be true depending upon the circumstances. However, in either case, it is a very misleading one. What they are talking about here is what we now term “Industrial Hemp” – The stuff (remnants of the days when it was legally farmed in the U.S., including Oklahoma),[6] that to this very day, grows wild on vacant land. And yes, averaging everything out (that is, taking ALL the Hemp plants growing in the U.S. at that time), we probably would have come out to only 1 or 2 percent, etc.
HOWEVER, the reader should note that medicines were never made from the Industrial versions of the Hemp plant, but from the (medically speaking) stronger verities. Thus (in context) their above statement is nonsensical.
"Today's new cultivation methods are producing a drug with up to 30 percent THC, or 3,000 percent higher than the old 1960's-1980's available marijuana.MUSEUM EDITORIAL NOTE: I for one am always amazed at how one drunk at a cocktail party can say something, another drunk repeats it, and then someone puts it up on the Internet as if it were true.
Well, at least this rumor can be traced back to its originator, which seems to have been the then Drug Czar John P. Walters. According to Daniel Forbes in an article entitled; "The Myth of Potent Pot" - "The drug czar's latest reefer madness: He claims that marijuana is 30 times more powerful than it used to be." [7]
To para-quote the words of Russ Belville:“In an early September op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, Walters wrote: "In 1974, the average THC content of marijuana was less than 1 percent. But by 1999, potency averaged 7 percent." This is plain wrong. According to the federal government's own Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi, 1999's average was 4.56 percent. Referring to Walters' 7 percent figure, Dr. Mahmoud A. ElSohly, who runs the project, says, "That's not correct for an overall average."
Walters also wrote that the THC level in "today's sinsemilla (the highest quality Marihuana) … averages 14 percent and ranges as high as 30 percent." He concluded, "The point is that the potency of available marijuana has not merely 'doubled,' but increased as much as 30 times."
A couple of weeks later in the Detroit News, Walters gave even more alarming numbers about regular pot, claiming that "today's marijuana is 10 to 14 percent [THC]. And hybrids go up to 30 percent and above."
[needless to say] . . . “Walters' figures are grossly distorted. . . . As to Walters' claim that all those '70s hippies were getting goofy on the 1-percent stuff—the basis for his 30-fold increase claim—the number lacks credibility. No one smokes 1-percent . . You make rope with it. The industrial hemp initiative approved by state election officials in South Dakota this year defined psychoactively worthless hemp as a plant with a "THC content of 1 percent or less."
“. . At least the math is correct: if you compare 1% industrial hemp that nobody smoked in the 1960s to the 30% THC hash oil that makes up a (very) tiny sub-percentage of the cannabis seized, then 3,000% is correct.” . . BUT, It's also as meaningful as comparing the alcohol content of a bottle of whiskey to that of a bottle of Pepsi Cola.
The Okla., Narc website then goes on to say:
"Some people argue marijuana should be legalized for both medical and recreational use. But medical studies show how dangerous this idea would be. New data has shown that marijuana smoke has a higher concentration of carcinogenic substances than tobacco smoke. "The implication being that Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) patients are at higher risk of Cancer. And granted, at the time the Oklahoma narc’s originally put up their website (we believe that was in 1998), a study had come out claiming this to be the case, but that study long ago has been disproven. In fact just recently (2012) according to Fox news, [8]
“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.”And while no one is saying that Medical Cannabis is a cure for Cancer Additional medical studies have found that Cannabis, of and by itself, has ANTI-CANCER properties that actually seem to shrink certain forms of Cancerous tumors. And while exactly how effective it is against cancerous growths is in dispute. I for one don’t need a scientific study to see the end results for myself.
The Okla., Narc website goes on to say:
"It is linked as a cause of lung problems such as bronchitis and emphysema"This allegation may (at least in part) have some merit. However, instead of jumping right into the subject, let us first dwell on the obvious. IF LEGAL, Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) WILL NOT be a smokable but an oral medicine. Point of fact, our museum has now documented well over 2,000 Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) medicines, that sold legally in drugstores across this country between the years 1840 and 1940. Of ALL these medicines only (2) two of them were smokable preparations. The rest were all either external lotions or oral medications. [9] Need proof, let’s look at some pretty pictures:
|
|
|
Do any of these medicines look as if anyone is going to smoke them? Quite literally, before the Reefer Madness campaign Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) came in a pill that you bought at your local drugstore. And (again) once legal it most assuredly will go back to being that way again -- So why all the Mumbo Jumbo about lung problems?
However, be that as it may, let us pretend that people will be inhaling it (just for the sake of argument) so we can look over their accusation.
While this author has no medical training, logic and reason dictate that any irritant (tobacco smoke, coal dust, air pollution, whatever), can damage the fragile air sacs in the lungs. Which in turn will prevent the lungs from being able to provide an adequate oxygen supply to the body, etc. Thus one would think it obvious that Cannabis smoke would do some sort of damage to the lungs. And there seem to be some scientific studies to establish that heavy smokers (of either Cannabis or tobacco or both) do indeed have a higher pertinacity toward those illnesses. . However, according to a study released by the AMA (American Medical Association) [Journal of the American Medical Association. - Jan 10, 2012] ; Due to the moderate use of Cannabis (Marihuana) cigarettes, as opposed to tobacco, the average user can expect no ill effects.
HOWEVER, as Medical Users require almost daily use, (as opposed to recreational users), it is assumed (by this writer) that lung problems might still be a possibility. Thus our reason for stating that the above statement might have some merit to it; --- HOWEVER, by the simple use of a Vaporizer, most if not all of these harmful effects can be negated. In addition (once legal) Medical users will simply be able to (once again) buy their oral medicines off the shelf at their local drugstore.
The Okla., Narc website then goes on to say:
". . . and studies confirm damage to brain cells, nerve cells"Upon reading such a statement, one can only roll ones eyes up in the air and think to ones self; “OH NO, not the monkey again. Alright, I’ll try to keep the origin of this one as short as possible.
Sometime in the mid-1970’s a doctor (Robert Heath) who happened to be a real Reefer Madness case, did some research on monkeys at the University of Tulane (New Orleans). Anyway his findings were that marihuana (that horrible weed of madness) caused brain damage in his monkeys. And needless to say the narc’s (as well as President Reagan), as well as a lot of other people, jumped on the bandwagon, claiming this as a reason for keeping the anti-Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) laws in place.
The only problem was Dr. Heath's methodology of exactly how he reached these findings was very vague and questionable right from the start. Only after several years and a growing pressure from the scientific community, did a full report of his methodology finally come to light. (again here to keep things short) It seems that while administering the Marihuana to the monkeys he had also deprived them of oxygen – No wonder there was brain cell damage. [10]
But in any case, by the time that his methodology came to light, the damage had already been done and yet another false fable had been created. A myth that it seems doesn’t want to die. A quick check over the internet under the search phrase, “Marijuana, causes damage to brain cells, nerve cells.” Turns up a hodgepodge of various scientific studies – ALL OF WHICH seem to contradict themselves. This (in a free society) of course is to be expected --- However, if anyone needs convincing that Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) DOES NOT CAUSE EITHER BRAIN OR NERVE CELL DAMAGE, just look over the summary of this patent (owned by the U.S. Federal Government no less):
|
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants Abstract |
|---|
Yet, despite this kind of contradictions (from the Federal Government no less), our Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics continues to . . . . well let’s just say there’s a reason why we are the laughing stock of the nation.
The Okla., Narc website then goes on to say:
". . . and studies confirm damage to . . reproductive organs which have lead to still births and birth defects.This one we will have to file in our, "NOT REALLY TRUE" department. To quote one website: [11]
“A number of studies claimed reported low birth weight and physical abnormalities among babies exposed to marijuana in utero. However, when other factors known to affect pregnancy outcomes were controlled for - for example, maternal age, socioeconomic class, and alcohol and tobacco use - the association between marijuana use and adverse fetal effects disappeared.”According to the follow up studies: [12]
"Fetal alcohol syndrome-like facial features were not associated with prenatal marijuana exposure in this study sample. No consistent patterns of facial features were identified among the marijuana-exposed group."Which all translates into: (a) there were a few studies that weren't very well done, which claimed Medical Marihuana effected reproduction and births. (b) But when their methodology was examined, flaws were found and (c) subsequent follow up studies totally disproved the whole thing.
[Astley, S., "Analysis of Facial Shape in Children Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine," Pediatrics. 1992 Jan;89(1):67-77]
" There were few significant effects of marijuana use during pregnancy on birth weight, head or chest circumference, gestational age, or growth retardation after adjustment for covariates using a regression model for analysis."
[Day, N. et al, "Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13:329-34 (1992)]
" When we used logistic regression to control for demographic characteristics, habits, and medical history data, these relationships [the use of Medical Cannabis] were not statistically significant."
[Linn, S. et al, "The Association of Marijuana Use with Outcome of Pregnancy," American Journal of Public Health 73:1161-64 (1983)]
|
WARNING: -- ONLY NARC'S AND STUPID PEOPLE DO STUPID THINGS
Granted, "the weight of scientific evidence indicates that marijuana has few adverse consequences for the developing human fetus." HOWEVER, it is still common horse sense to advise pregnant women to abstain from using most drugs - including marijuana, tobacco, alcohol etc. In other words, PLEASE give the kid a break. |
|---|
The Okla., Narc website then goes on to say:
". . . and studies confirm damage to . . In addition, acute memory loss . . . also have been traced to marijuana smoking.
To the best of our knowledge this myth has been traced back to a "Cheech and Chong" comedy sketch. No joke, we think that's where came from. but all joking aside, here are the facts:
To our knowledge there is NO LONG TERM "ACUTE MEMORY LOSS" of any kind associated with the use of Medical Cannabis (Medicinal Marihuana) and if no one has been able to prove this by now, -- it's probably not going to happen because it simply DOESN'T HAPPEN.
NEXT, there is some proof that while using large amounts of recreational Marihuana (probably much more then what a normal Cancer patient would need), that YES indeed there is SOME SHORT term memory problems. But it is also true that everything goes back to normal after the effects wear off. A.k.a. - no permanent loss of short term memory either. [12B]
Here it is presumed that this is also true about a whole host of prescription medicines out there in general everyday use.
The Okla., Narc website then goes on to say:
". . . and studies confirm . . lowered immune systems also have been traced to marijuana smoking.The original source for this golden wonder came from the "infamous" Gabriel Nahas [13] (note, this guy became such an embarrassment that after a while not even the narc's wanted to quote him anymore)
Quoting the New York Times (obituary section) July 7, 2012
"Dr. Nahas . . .His research, which he did as a professor at Columbia University and reported in more than 700 articles in scientific journals, suggested that marijuana contributed to cancers of the head and neck, leukemia, infertility, brain damage and a weakening of the immune system."At this point there have been so many scientific studies that contradict Dr. Nahas's original assertions, that I see no point in debating the matter. For those of you interested in the subject, the website -
"His critics in the scientific community sometimes assailed his methodology, questioning the large judgments he made often based on small samples. Organizations promoting the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana painted him as a villain. The New England Journal of Medicine once described his work as “psychopharmacological McCarthyism that compels him to use half-truths, innuendo and unverifiable assertions.”
In 1974, he announced that he had discovered a link between the drug and the body’s immune system. “The findings represent the first direct evidence of cellular damage from marijuana in man,” he said in a statement.
But scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studied the chromosomes of volunteers who smoked marijuana, found no deficiency in immune responses and no chromosome abnormalities, which Dr. Nahas had also predicted."
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth5.shtml ---- does a good job of documenting these studies, all of which can be easily obtained on line.
Continuing on, the Oklahoma narc website then goes on to say:
Plus, surveys indicate that about 33 percent of all patients in emergency rooms test positive for either alcohol or marijuana in their systems.Mark Twain once said that, "There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics." Which is another way of saying, WHERE DO THESE PEOPLE COME FROM? And do these narc's really think that they are going to get away with this one? I guess so.
Ok, let's look over what the statement says, -- that 33 percent of all emergency room patients test positive for either alcohol or marijuana. Humm, very nice, wording, but what would happen if we take alcohol out of the picture? You guessed it, the figure drops like a rock. In 1992, of 433,493 total emergency room drug mentions, only 4,464 - about 1% - involved the use of marijuana alone. And note that this meant only that a Marihuana user went to the hospital for whatever -- NOT that marihuana was the cause of the hospital visit. [14]
Street names for marijuana include: pot, weed, Mary Jane, dope, grass, hash, hashish, joint, and gange(sic).Well yes this is true, but HOWEVER, even here it is interesting to note that (at least) some of these terms were in fact coined by the Drug Police themselves. Pot, obviously a derogatory term etc., a weed is technically the name of an unwanted plant. Obviously nothing that someone (other than a narc) would have coined, etc. A small technicality but of some interest to students of governmental propaganda.
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Are there safety concerns regarding the use of Medicinal Cannabis (Medical Marihuana), obviously yes, some very minor ones. But let us repeat what was written sometime ago in the Lancet (which by the way is probably the most respected medical journal in the English language) and that is:
“. . on the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on health, and that decisions to ban or to legalize cannabis should be based on other considerations. -- The Lancet, Vol.352, Is.9140, Pg 1565, Nov. 14, 1998What they are saying (In words that we can understand), is this; If for whatever reason you are going to outlaw Medicinal Cannabis, DON'T BE USING SAFETY as one of those reasons.
POST SCRIPT:
We believe that we have shown (proven) that at least some of the statements made by our “Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics” are out and out false. And that many of the others are at best deliberately misleading.
Now were these statements made by some high school student, we could ignore the whole thing. But might we remind the reader that these are (ah) official statements, made by those with the badge of authority. They in effect represent the whole of the State of Oklahoma, or at least its elected government.
NO WONDER WE ARE THE LAUGHING STOCK of the whole place. But even worse, people are going to jail based on perceptions created by these false statements.
===========
FOOTNOTES:
[1A]- http://stash.norml.org/this-is-your-oklahoma-police-on-drugs
[1B]- http://www.ok.gov/obndd/Education/Marijuana_Fact_Sheet.html
[2]- For those interested in old Egyptian papyrus scrolls, our website has a good section on them -
http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap02/Egypt/Egyptian.htm
[3]- Also, our website http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap02/History.htm contains a very good graphical history of Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) in general.
[4]- Our sister website www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com - contains lot's of old Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) bottle pictures. And our CD-rom collection documents a lot more of them.
[5]- For those interested in the subject, go to our main museum website - www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com and look over our FDA grandfather clause petition over there. Note it’s been over two years and we are still waiting to hear from them.
[6]- Although not common, Industrial Hemp was grown in Oklahoma -- as is event by this short newspaper report:
El Reno News Nov. 15, 1900 p6 [Oklahoma]
“Henry Nelson, who owns a fine farm four miles west of Oklahoma city, has 40 acres of fine hemp. At the present price of hemp Mr. Nelson believes that his crop will bring him an average of $65 per acre, or a total of $2,600. Hemp raising is a new experiment in Oklahoma.”
[7]- http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2002/11/the_myth_of_potent_pot.html
[8]- According to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html
[9]- For more information on old antique cannabis medicines visit our website at www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com :
[10]- Note the author has contacted the Tulane University to get what info I could on this subject. And was meat with death silence on the matter. I can only assume that they are still trying to live that one down.
[10B]- For those interested you can look over the whole patent via Google Patents search.
[11]- http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth7.shtml
[12]- All of these studies can be located via pubmed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
[12B]- A study “Residual effects of cannabis use on neurocognitive performance after prolonged abstinence: A meta-analysis,” by Amy Schreiner and Michael Dunn (Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, Vol 20(5), Oct 2012, 420-429.) Simply put it this way: “There was no evidence for enduring negative effects of cannabis use.”
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pha/20/5/420
[13]- Nahas, Gabriel.G. et al, "Inhibition of Cellular Mediated Immunity in Marijuana Smokers," Science 183:419-20 (1974).
[14]- The following website does a good job of addressing many of these myths:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth.shtml
WANT TO KNOW MORE:
=====================
Due to space / download time considerations, only selected materials are displayed. If you would like to obtain more information, feel free to contact the museum. All our material is available (at cost) on CD-Rom format.
CONTACT PAGE
|
BACK TO OKLAHOMA MAIN PAGE |
|
Our Motto - We're pro-Medical Cannabis and we Vote!