Study: Regular Marijuana Use May Prevent Diabetes and Make You Skinnier

Current marijuana users have 16 percent lower fasting insulin levels compared to non-users, according to the American Journal of Medicine

Activist Post

Regular marijuana use is associated with favorable indices related to diabetic control, say investigators. They found that current marijuana users had significantly lower fasting insulin and were less likely to be insulin resistant, even after excluding patients with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Their findings are reported in the current issue of The American Journal of Medicine.

Marijuana (Cannabis sativa) has been used for centuries to relieve pain, improve mood, and increase appetite. Outlawed in the United States in 1937, its social use continues to increase and public opinion is swinging in favor of the medicinal use of marijuana. There are an estimated 17.4 million current users of marijuana in the United States. Approximately 4.6 million of these users smoke marijuana daily or almost daily. A synthetic form of its active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as THC, has already been approved to treat side-effects of chemotherapy, AIDS-induced anorexia, nausea, and other medical conditions. With the recent legalization of recreational marijuana in two states and the legalization of medical marijuana in 19 states and the District of Columbia, physicians will increasingly encounter marijuana use among their patient populations.

A multicenter research team analyzed data obtained during the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2010. They studied data from 4,657 patients who completed a drug use questionnaire. Of these, 579 were current marijuana users, 1,975 had used marijuana in the past but were not current users, and 2,103 had never inhaled or ingested marijuana. Fasting insulin and glucose were measured via blood samples following a nine hour fast, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated to evaluate insulin resistance.

Participants who reported using marijuana in the past month had lower levels of fasting insulin and HOMA-IR and higher levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). These associations were weaker among those who reported using marijuana at least once, but not in the past thirty days, suggesting that the impact of marijuana use on insulin and insulin resistance exists during periods of recent use. Current users had 16% lower fasting insulin levels than participants who reported never having used marijuana in their lifetimes.

Large waist circumference is linked to diabetes risk. In the current study there were also significant associations between marijuana use and smaller waist circumferences.

"Previous epidemiologic studies have found lower prevalence rates of obesity and diabetes mellitus in marijuana users compared to people who have never used marijuana, suggesting a relationship between cannabinoids and peripheral metabolic processes, but ours is the first study to investigate the relationship between marijuana use and fasting insulin, glucose, and insulin resistance," says lead investigator Murray A. Mittleman, MD, DrPH, of the Cardiovascular Epidemiology Research Unit at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

"It is possible that the inverse association in fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance seen among current marijuana users could be in part due to changes in usage patterns among those with a diagnosis of diabetes (i.e., those with diabetes may have been told to cease smoking). However, after we excluded those subjects with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, the associations between marijuana use and insulin levels, HOMA-IR, waist circumference, and HDL-C were similar and remained statistically significant," states Elizabeth Penner, MD, MPH, an author of the study.

Although people who smoke marijuana have higher average caloric intake levels than non-users, marijuana use has been associated with lower body-mass index (BMI) in two previous surveys. "The mechanisms underlying this paradox have not been determined and the impact of regular marijuana use on insulin resistance and cardiometabolic risk factors remains unknown," says coauthor Hannah Buettner.

The investigators acknowledge that data on marijuana use were self-reported and may be subject to underestimation or denial of illicit drug use. However, they point out, underestimation of drug use would likely yield results biased toward observing no association.

Editor-in-Chief Joseph S. Alpert, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, comments, "These are indeed remarkable observations that are supported, as the authors note, by basic science experiments that came to similar conclusions.

"We desperately need a great deal more basic and clinical research into the short- and long-term effects of marijuana in a variety of clinical settings such as cancer, diabetes, and frailty of the elderly," continues Alpert." I would like to call on the NIH and the DEA to collaborate in developing policies to implement solid scientific investigations that would lead to information assisting physicians in the proper use and prescription of THC in its synthetic or herbal form."

Contact: Jane Grochowski
ajmmedia@elsevier.com
406-542-8397
Elsevier Health Sciences

Cannabis and Movies: A History of Contradiction

The Changing Media View of Cannabis

Cannabis and its legality are never far from the fore of political and societal debate. There are those who argue for the medically approved usage, those for complete decriminalisation and legalisation and those who staunchly oppose the use of marijuana in any way shape or form.
However, it is the ever changing social view that guides this ebbing and flowing tide of argument that has seen the debate never yet put to bed.
One of the best ways to gain an insight into the changing view of cannabis is in the media and movies have for the last century played a major part in portraying the cultural views of the time whether through documentation, scaremongering and even comedy…

The Horrors of REEFER!!!

It wasn’t until the early days of the 20^th century that proper legislation was brought into place that identified that cannabis was a harmful intoxicant and was made illegal. Even still it was widely used in the United States and the variant hemp was still used in industry for ship rigging, animal feed, textiles and many more things in the 20’s and 30’s. This was when the media would strike a major blow to the cannabis culture.
The most prominent anti cannabis film of the time was Reefer Madness (released in 1936). This film has been widely criticised in recent years due to its absurd scaremongering tactics and close ties to the logging industry. This was less an informative piece and more of an exploitative slander piece against the use of hemp over wood in industry.
This and a variety of other bizarre exploitation films from this time such as “Marihuana” and “Assassin of Youth” paint cannabis smoking in a hysterical and usually bizarre light with results ranging from becoming psychopathic rapists to fuelling kidnapping and abandoning children.
All of this worked to fuel a strong anti cannabis propaganda movement at the time that was actually quite effective. The Reefer Madness film also spawned the derogatory term ‘Reefer Addict’.

Your Country Needs YOU… to Grow Weed!

In a bizarrely self-contradictory decade, the 40’s saw a continuation of the anti-pot propaganda coupled with a government funded plea for farmers to grow hemp on mass.
The film “Hemp for Victory” was created by the United States government during World War 2 that actively encouraged farmers to grow crops of hemp to help with the war effort. It seemed that the evils of hemp and cannabis went right out of the window when they could be of some use. Hemp marijuana seeds were dispersed throughout the states in accordance with this film that basically said “We need weed to win the war.”
Once the war effort was over and freedom saved, it seems appropriately hypocritical for American media to go back to telling you what you can’t and shouldn’t do when “She Shoulda Said No!” or “The Devils Weed” was released in 1949.

Misconceptions Go Up in Smoke

It wasn’t until almost 30 years later that cannabis would receive any alternate view in popular culture or films, but when it did, people didn’t know what to think.
One of the first movies to show the lighter side of smoking cannabis was Cheech and Chong’s Up in Smoke movie, the 1978 follow-up to their stand-up and television appearances. Cheech and Chong never made any qualms with the way they were often viewed, the dopey stoners, wasters with more blunts than brain cells.
It didn’t matter as that was part of their charm and they were a part of the changing view of cannabis in regular society. Sure, people had done plenty of it during the 60’s but it had always been kept out of the view of the buttoned down family friendly mainstream.
This was a major change, when cannabis could be spoken about openly and not presented as the monstrous apparition of nightmares.
Stoners were no longer the terrifying reefer addicts out to abduct your children… stoners were funny!

The Cannabis Backdraft

While Cheech and Chong have gone on to be world renowned, they were still marginalised in their time. It would be the 90’s and 2000’s that saw cannabis become an accepted part of society. Already cannabis was smoked in more homes than the government would care to admit but the acceptance of it as common culture in the media really carried some weight.
Films like Half Baked, How High and Pineapple Express may all have been comedies but to a degree they were part of the more open and honest portrayal of cannabis in the media. Films like Dazed and Confused while also comedic in some aspects painted a picture of the adolescent purgatory of the teenage years that was relatable to so many. In what decade previous could pot heads be relatable?

The Informed Stoner

The final piece of the cannabis puzzle seems to after the best part of a century been found, and it is ever so carefully being put into place. No longer simply a mechanism for entertainment, cannabis documentaries are asking questions about why cannabis is illegal, how harmful it really is, the healthcare applications of these medical seeds and why governments are still so staunchly against its decriminalisation.
Documentaries like “Waiting to Inhale”, “In Pot We Trust” and the hilarious yet informative “Super High Me” are finally lifting the lid on cannabis culture and the future potential of this always controversial herb.
Cannabis has been the realm of the farmer, the reefer addict, the patriot, the dopey stoner, the average Joe and finally… the informed individual.

Brian Ramsey

A Royal Commission? – Far too risky for prohibitionists.

by UKCIA

And so at last after a year or so of meetings, the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) drugs inquiry was finally published last Monday. In the event it was probably worth a murmur of approval, if not half a cheer.
It’s fair to say that some of us weren’t that hopeful it would produce anything much, especially given the fact that it was chaired by Keith Vaz, not an MP known for his radical thinking or willingness to upset any apple carts. It was very noticeable throughout the whole inquiry that the 90-odd percent of the drug using population – those who are non-problematic recreational users – didn’t get so much as a look-in. From what I saw the only drug users who ever got considered were those who had an addiction or some other problem.
In September I attended a meeting of the HASC which was open to people who had submitted written evidence. In his opening remarks Keith Vaz listed all the problems “caused by drugs”, which were actually caused by the prohibition of them.
So we had an inquiry into the future of the drugs laws which failed to take into consideration the vast majority of the users and seemed based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the problem. So I wasn’t expecting it to come up with anything much worthwhile and on the whole I was right, it was a pretty bland report all in all. You can download the whole thing (called “Breaking the Cycle) here
But it wasn’t all bad, most importantly it recommend a Royal Commission to review the whole issue, specifically to look at other regimes and to study the effect of the recent legalistion of cannabis in some states of the USA and of course, this was far too much for the prohibition lobby, represented now by that former supporter of law reform David Cameron who vetoed it instantly, the Home Office trotting out the same old same old.
It really is depressing that a country like ours, so full of creativity and cultural vitality, gets leaders like Cameron but we do seem to make a habit of it. Cameron dismissed the report’s main findings instantly, there is no need for any review of prohibition apparently, everything is fine. Once again the British government’s position on drug law reform can be sumarised by “We’ve got our fingers in our ears and we’re not listening, lalala”.
But even as the HASC was proceeding, the ground was beginning to shift and in November the inflexible wall of prohibition received its first real crack with the states of Washington and Colorado voting for legal cannabis – not just for medical use but for people to enjoy using for pleasure. The thing the prohibition movement must surely have dreaded  finally happened and prohibition was actually voted down democratically, and not just anywhere but in the home of the drug war, the USA.
React the prohibitionists certainly have. the UN “International Narcotics Control Board”  – INCB was first off the blocks warning the US to enforce prohibition and to strike down these moves to legalise.

Mr. Yans stated that “these developments are in violation of the international drug control treaties, and pose a great threat to public health and the well-being of society far beyond those states”.

The US Drug Tsar Richard Gil Kerlikowske made it clear that there would be no change, (BBC Audio clip) but the state law duly came into being early December as thus far nothing has been heard from the US Federal government
Obama has stated they aren’t going to go after small time recreational users though so it does look like prohibition has taken its first big hit although quite where this will lead is anyone’s guess, but it hasn’t gone unnoticed  and cannabis law reform is now very much on the agenda all over South America. To coin a phrase from a different era, the dominoes are starting to fall.
Add to this a new campaign called Breaking the Taboo, launched on the back of a film of that name and it’s clear this whole debate isn’t going to get shut down as the prohibition lobby would like to see.
So what about us here in the UK? The HASC recommended a Royal Commission which will report in 2015, in time for our next general election and before the UN is due to review the drug war globally. So now is a really good time for a Royal Commission to sit in other words and David Cameron’s rejection of it is not only depressingly predictable, it’s actually not helpful in terms of formulating this country’s attitude to the UN review.
We have no idea what Labour thinks of it all, not a word has been uttered on the subject. Previously though Ed Milliband has shown himself to be aligned with Cameron’s lack of thinking so it looks like the British voter isn’t going to be offered a choice come the next election from either of these two parties.
The genie does seem to be out of the bottle though and the reaction in most of the media has been pretty hostile to Cameron’s foolishness. It’s no longer risky to speak out against the prohibition regime and more and more people are doing so. Even Sun readers voted overwhelmingly for a review of drug laws, something that was certainly never supposed to happen.
Into the mess comes Nick Clegg, the leader of the LibDems and deputy Prime Minister in the Con-Dem government. On Friday Nick Clegg actually made history by being the first ever serving minister to admit the war on drugs has failed and to call for a review. In doing this he has put a real distance between himself and David Cameron. It is just a pity that the LibDems are so reviled now, with support for them almost down to single figures they look very close to being wiped out come the next election. But it is possible that issues like this could provide hope for the millions of UK voters who are simply alienated by the mainstream parties and Clegg my yet pull a rabbit from his hat. Time will tell. One thing for certain though, the prohibs are mad as hell about it, as Peter Hitchens demonstrated

But this is a country where senior politicians (I know who they are, but cannot name them) have snorted cocaine in their adult lives, where the political, media and academic establishment is crammed full of former or present dope-smokers, and where the police themselves are broken defeatists in the face of drugs.
Such a Commission would undoubtedly be stuffed with the apostles of dope, as every single body has been that has considered the subject since Baroness Wootton’s original committee in 1968-69.

Away from the closed minds of people like Hitchens it’s interesting to note the argument being used in support of drug law reform is something I’ve always believed would be used by politicians who understand the need to climb out of the hole of prohibition. The case for reform is being used as an argument to crack down on drugs, to prevent use – especially by children – by offering treatment rather than punishment, which is fine except of course, 90 odd percent of users don’t need treatment. Those who support legalisation do so because they want proper control and regulation of the supply side, it”s all a long way from the liberalisation and a move to greater freedom as the “traditional” legalise cannabis campaign tried to argue, although of course it ends in the same place. This is a classic example of how politicians can do a U turn in policy whist saving face and that’s fine by me. It’s also, to be honest, the strong argument against the war on drugs.
What this past week has shown very clearly however is just how scared prohibition supporters are of any examination of the present policy. They have good reason to be scared because in truth it isn’t possible to moderate the war on drugs, prohibition is either all or nothing, especially when it comes to cannabis. How much longer can this madness continue? Time will tell.

Uruguay Marijuana Legalization Bill Allows Home Grows and Sales

Phillip Smith
Stop The Drug War

A Uruguayan bill that would create a system of state-licensed marijuana sales and commercial cultivation was presented to Congress Wednesday, and, according to Reuters, includes a provision that will allow Uruguayans to grow their own at home or in clubs.

The use and possession of small amounts of marijuana is already legal in Uruguay, but President Jose Mujica, a former leftist guerrilla leader, has said he wants to see the measure passed in a bid to undermine drug-smuggling gangs and other criminality in a region buffeted by prohibition-related violence.

Unlike earlier news reports, which spoke of a state monopoly on marijuana cultivation and sales, the bill introduced Wednesday says only that the government will manage and regulate commercial cultivation and sales. Whether it will actually open state-run pot farms or marijuana retail outlets is yet to be decided, but in either case, a National Cannabis Institute will be in charge.

"The idea is to grant licenses for production, distribution, storage and for retail. We haven't said whether that will be done by the private or public sector, the government will decide that," Sebastian Sabini, a ruling party lawmaker who heads a congressional committee on drugs and addiction, told Reuters.

Under the pending legislation, each household could grow up to six plants or possess up to 480 grams, or slightly more than a pound. People could also join "smoking clubs" with up to 15 members and grow six plants per member, up to an annual production of 15.8 pounds. Marijuana users who wanted to buy through state-operated or -- regulated facilities would be limited to purchasing 40 grams (just under 1 ½ ounces) per month.

Because Uruguay is a parliamentary democracy and because Mujica and his political allies control both houses of Congress, the bill is expected to be approved sometime next year.

Please visit and support StopTheDrugWar.org to help end prohibition.

NJ “Weedman” found not guilty in jury nullification victory

Image source

JG Vibes
Activist Post

With few options left for people to protect themselves from the ever growing police state, an old and long forgotten aspect of constitutional law is making a huge comeback, and becoming very popular in cases where people are facing jail time for nonviolent offenses.

This reemerging defense is the act of jury nullification, which is basically the right for any juror to not only judge the facts of the case, but to also actually judge the validity of the law itself. This means that if a jury feels that a defendant is facing an unjust charge they actually have the right to rule in their favor even if they are technically guilty.

Ed Forchion is a medical cannabis user and cancer patient known as the “NJ weedman”. Ed claims dual residency in Pemberton Township, New Jersey and Los Angeles, California. Due to his residency in California he has a prescription for Cannabis and is legally allowed to grow and consume the plant in that state.

However, he is not legally allowed to possess the plant in the state of New Jersey and unfortunately while in New Jersey on April 1, 2012 Forchion was stopped by police and found with a pound of cannabis and $2,000, enough to get slapped with a distribution charge.

At an earlier trial last spring, he was convicted of possession, but that jury could not reach a unanimous decision on the more serious distribution charge, leading to this week’s retrial. With the distribution charge he was facing 10 years, and it is likely that the jury couldn’t send him away with a clear conscience. Ed’s primary strategy throughout his whole ordeal has been jury nullification, much to the dismay of Superior Court Judge Charles Delehey, who presided over both trials.

Forchion was passionate in his closing arguments, wearing a shirt that said “Marijuana … It’s OK. It’s Just Illegal” and telling the jury that he had been munching on pot cookies throughout the whole trial. Then at one point he was nearly held in contempt of court for trying to advance his jury nullification argument.

Considering the fact that most of the nonviolent offenses on the books today are extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons, you would think that jury nullification would be household knowledge, or taught in schools even. However, this is a very well guarded secrets, with many judges actually preventing the defense from informing juries of their right to nullify laws that they feel are unjust.

When Forcion started to talk about nullification, Delehey quickly stopped him, reminding him that he wasn’t allowed to go there, but Forchion fought back with intelligence and intensity. Frustrated, the judge ordered the jury out of the room and told him he would be held in contempt if he continued to speak the truth.

According to Phillyblurbs the judge told him “If you want to make a martyr of yourself, the court will deal with you. You’ve done everything you can to disrupt this trial.”

There has been a constant tug of war between the defendant and the judge for the past year. During last May’s trial, Forchion and his supporter’s placed pamphlets about jury nullification on cars parked in the jury parking lot and were very vocal about the illegitimacy of the law and the juries right to decide the validity of the law.

In pretrial motions, which were subsequently barred from being argued before the jury, Forchion challenged the constitutionality of the state’s criminal code now that New Jersey has a Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana law that recognizes the benefits of cannabis.

He said Thursday he looks forward to the state Appellate Division reviewing that motion when he appeals the possession conviction, which he still faces sentencing on. Oddly enough, it will be the same judge who decides his sentence, but he will still have the ability to appeal, which can possibly lead to another acquittal.

J.G. Vibes is the author of an 87 chapter counter culture textbook called Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance and host of a show called Voluntary Hippie Radio. He is also an artist with an established record label and event promotion company that hosts politically charged electronic dance music events. You can keep up with his work, which includes free podcasts, free e-books & free audiobooks at his website www.aotmr.com.

Decriminalize Drug Possession, UK Experts Say

Phillip Smith
Stop The Drug War

In a report six years in the making, the United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission, a non-governmental advisory body chaird by Dame Edith Runciman, has called for a reboot of British drug policy and for decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use.

The report, A Fresh Approach to Drugs, found that the UK is wasting much of the $4.8 billion a year it spends fighting illegal drugs and that the annual cost to the country of hard drug use was about $20 billion. A smarter set of drug policies emphasizing prevention, diversion, and treatment would be a more effective use of public resources, the report found.

Some 42,000 people in the UK are convicted each year of drug possession offenses and another 160,000 given citations for marijuana possession. Arresting, citing, and jailing all those people "amounts to a lot of time and money for police, prosecution, and courts," the report said.

"To address these costs, there is evidence to suggest that the law on the possession of small amounts of controlled drugs, for personal use only, could be changed so that it is no longer a criminal offence. Criminal sanctions could be replaced with simple civil penalties, such as a fine, perhaps a referral to a drug awareness session run by a public health body, or if there was a demonstrable need, to a drug treatment program. The evidence from other countries that have done this is that it would not necessarily lead to any significant increase in use, while providing opportunities to address some of the harms associated with existing drug laws," the report recommended.

"Given its relatively low level of harm, its wide usage, and international developments, the obvious drug to focus on as a first step is cannabis, which is already subject to lesser sanctions than previously with the use of cannabis warnings. If evaluations indicated that there were no substantial negative consequences, similar incremental measures could be considered, with caution and careful further evaluation, for other drugs," the report said.

But while the commission was ready to embrace decriminalization, it was not ready to go as far as legalizing drug sales.

"We do not believe that there is sufficient evidence at the moment to support the case for removing criminal penalties for the major production or supply offences of most drugs," it said.

Still, policy makers might want to consider lowering the penalties for growing small numbers of marijuana plants to "undermine the commercialization of production, with the associated involvement of organized crime."

The report also called for a review of harsh sentences for drug offenses, a consistent framework for regulating all psychoactive substances—from nicotine to heroin—and for moving the policy prism through which drug policy is enacted from the criminal justice system to the public health system.

But the Home Office, which currently administers drug policy in Britain, wasn't having any of it. Things are going swimmingly already, a Home Office spokesperson said.

"While the government welcomes the UKDPC's contribution to the drugs debate, we remain confident that our ambitious approach to tackling drugs - outlined in our drugs strategy - is the right one," the spokesperson said. "Drug usage is at it lowest level since records began. Drug treatment completions are increasing and individuals are now significantly better placed to achieve recovery and live their lives free from drugs."I want to take this opportunity to thank the UKDPC for its work in this area over the past six years."

Please visit and support StopTheDrugWar.org to help end prohibition.

Fighting Cancer: Another Study Reveals the Cannabis and Cancer Link

Elizabeth Renter
Activist Post

Does marijuana cause cancer? Revealing the link between cannabis and cancer yet again, researchers with the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco have released findings that further bolster cannabis as an anti-cancer solution. The researchers have found a compound in the much-talked-about plant could “halt the spread” of many types of aggressive cancers, including breast cancer.

The Cannabis and Cancer Link

Cannabidiol is the compound, and while it fights cancer cells, it does not produce the high feelings commonly associated with cannabis. Instead, it seems to “switch off” the gene responsible for metastasizing breast cancer.

They reportedly found the compound doesn't only stop the breast cancer cells from growing, but even causes them to return back to normal cells, cancer-free.

Further exemplifying the benefits of marijuana and showing the cannabis and cancer relationship, a similar study was published last year after the group found promising results in mice. Now, they say they are “on the verge” of publishing another study on animals that further expands these results.

The preclinical trial data is very strong, and there’s no toxicity. There’s really a lot or research to move ahead with and to get people excited,” said study co-leader Dr. Sean McAllister.

The research is a long way off from developing a medication or cancer-treatment for humans, but it is another step in the right direction. They are said to be developing human trials and look forward to testing it in combination with current chemo therapies. A real measure of success, however, would be found if the natural substance could be used without traditional chemo.

As we reported just a few months ago, the effectiveness of this go-to traditional cancer treatment is highly questionable, furthering the need for a natural alternative. Scientists looking at cancer cells unexpectedly found that chemo actually damages healthy cells and causes them to release a protein that actually increases tumor growth. In addition, it makes the tumor more resistant to future treatment.

This is in addition to all of the side effects brought on by this poison—including the well-known hair loss and nausea, as well as long term cognitive dysfunction.

Other studies have been made over the past decades much like this one linking cannabis and cancer prevention: Manuel Guzman located in Madrid, Spain discovered that cannabinoids substantially inhibit the growth of tumors in a variety of lab animals. In the study he also found that not one of these tested animals endured any kind of side effects seen in many similar chemotherapy treatments. It is becoming increasingly clear that you can sidestep any of the misery associated with traditional cancer treatments and embrace the potent, effective healing powers of THC and cannabidiol (CBD).

Now we just have to cross our fingers that Big Pharma won’t stake her claim on the natural compounds, patenting them, creating perverse versions of them in a lab to bottle and affix with an exorbitant price.

Additional Sources:
DailyMail

Explore More:

• Marijuana and Cancer Relationship – Marijuana Found to Destroy Cancer Cells
• Does Marijuana Cause Cancer? Research Says Marijuana Fights Cancer
• Cannabis Legalization – Government Funded Research Halts the War on Cannabis
• Natural Cancer-Fighting Spice Reduces Tumors by 81%
• Research: Gold and Tea Outperform Chemo in Fighting Cancer
• Tommy Chong Reveals Prostate Cancer Diagnosis, Treating with Hemp Oil

This article first appeared at Natural Society, an excellent resource for health news and vaccine information.

Cannabis and its Medicinal Value

Posted by Matt Aldridge
Dear ISMOKE Readers,
Here in the UK we are told by our government that the cannabis plant has no medicinal value. Please could you take a moment to review some of the information listed below and let me know whether you think the government itself has authority or any real value, when it comes to being experts on medicine? Thank you for your time.
Does Cannabis Cure Cancer?
THC (marijuana) Helps Cure Cancer Says Harvard Study
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXhwP5QjUQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Medical Marijuana, A Cure for Cancer? 02/11
http://www.cannabisscience.com/download/cancer_extract_kills.pdf
Web MD, Cannabis Kills Brain Cancer Cells IN HUMANS:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemical-may-fight-brain-cancer
CANNABIS SCIENCE: EXTRACTS KILL CANCER CELLS
http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/220-cannabis-science-extracts-kill-cancer-cells.html
Cannabis THC at high doses in area, inhibits cholangiocarcinoma cancer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793?itool=Email.EmailReport.Pubmed_ReportSelector.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=6
Cannabis Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth in Half:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
THC inhibits Lung Cancer Growth
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html
CBD’s switch off Breast Cancer Gene:
http://www.examiner.com/cannabis-revolution-in-national/cannabidiol-researchers-discover-the-switch-to-turn-off-aggressive-breast-cancer-gene
Anticancer activity of cannabinoids:
http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_se…p_1975.htm
9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Inhibits Cell Cycle Progression in Human Breast Cancer through Cdc2 Regulation:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6615.abstract
Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma:
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/318/3/1375.abstract
Cannabidiol inhibits tumour growth in leukaemia and breast cancer in animal studies:
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=220#2
Suppression of Nerve Growth Factor Trk Receptors and Prolactin Receptors by Endocannabinoids Leads to Inhibition of Human Breast and Prostate Cancer Cell Proliferation:
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/1/118
The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation:
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/8375.abstract
Marijuana Ingredients Slow Invasion by Cervical and Lung Cancer Cells:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071226/pot-slows-cancer-in-test-tube
Cannabinoids in intestinal inflammation and cancer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=22
Cannabis compound clue to colon cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926685.000-cannabis-compound-clue-to-colon-cancer.html?feedId=drugs-alcohol_rss20
Marijuana takes on colon cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14451-marijuana-takes-on-colon-cancer.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news9_head_dn14451
The endogenous cannabinoid, anandamide, induces cell death in colorectal carcinoma cells: a possible role for cyclooxygenase 2:
http://gut.bmj.com/content/54/12/1741.abstract
Anti-Tumor Effects of Cannabis:
http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntiTumorEffects.php
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through a cannabinoid receptor-independent mechanism:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1576089/?tool=pmcentrez
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948
Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/16/5617.full
Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php
A pilot clinical study of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme:
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=193
Cannabis use and cancer of the head and neck: Case-control study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277494/
Cannabis and Cancer research and studies from around the world
GERMANY
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893424
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19015962
HUNGARY
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608284
ISRAEL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237277
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11586361
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692532
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571653
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890
ITALY
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052046
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189054
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354058
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047095
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10913156
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9653194
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18088200
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16909207
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17342320
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059457
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539619
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500647
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189659
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14617682
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938775
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106791
JAPAN
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394652
KOREA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336665
NEW ZEALAND
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435
POLAND
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451022
SAUDI ARABIA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197164
SLOVAKIA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997
SPAIN
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16787257
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15958274
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16139274
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624285
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690545
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307616
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596790
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638794
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15275820
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10570948
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229996
SWEDEN
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19609004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337199
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16936228
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18546271
SWITZERLAND
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15453094
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589225
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047233
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19509271
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19480992
TAIWAN
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18387516
THAILAND
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
UKRAINE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18438336
UNITED KINGDOM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15454482
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17583570
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931597
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615640
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14640910
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20191092
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/616322
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753356
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18199524
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19887554
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19457575
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12130702
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11854771
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16754784
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20090845
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15978942
I am proposing the evidence above as a question, and not as a claim.
Matt Aldridge
---
Follow ISMOKE Magazine on Twitter @ISMOKEMAG
ISMOKE Magazine on Facebook

Swiss Move to Decriminalize Marijuana Possession

Philip Smith
StopTheDrugWar

Switzerland is on the verge of decriminalizing the possession of up to 10 grams of marijuana after the lower house of parliament Thursday agreed to align itself with the Senate's version of the legislation, according to the Swiss news portal Swissinfo.ch. A final reading of the bill is expected to happen before the end of the fall session next week.

That would bring Switzerland in line with most of its Western European neighbors, which tolerate small-time marijuana possession. The move comes four years after voters rejected outright legalization in a popular referendum.

Switzerland has an estimated 500,000 pot smokers, with 10% of people in their teens and twenties saying they are consumers, one of the highest figures in the world. Currently, punishment for small-time possession varies from canton to canton, with some having already virtually decriminalized it with a small fine, while in others, violators face criminal penalties. Swiss courts handle 30,000 marijuana possession cases a year.

Preliminary parliamentary approval came over the opposition of conservatives in the Swiss People's Party and some members of center-right parties. People's Party legislator Thomas de Courten unsuccessfully sought to double the proposed $108 fine and warned that decriminalization was "giving the wrong message" to young consumers.

"The very mention of the word cannabis seems to trigger psychotropic effects among some members of this chamber," retorted Yvonne Gilli of the Green Party.

The proposal was pushed by the Christian Democratic Party, one of the five parties that make up Switzerland's governing coalition, but government officials seem decidedly lukewarm about it. The cabinet supports the bill, but "without enthusiasm," Interior Minister Alain Berset said.

For more information about marijuana legislation and the war on drugs, visit StopTheDrugWar.org

Supporting the Local Cannabis Growers

Posted by Nuff Said

Any pot aficionado would tell you that the best pot is that which is grown locally. Of course, aside from the occasional covert operations, this can’t really apply everywhere. While some US states for instance have a more liberal policy on cannabis cultivation, if you live outside of these areas then you’re pretty much limited to taking whatever you can get so it’s literally a case of ‘pot luck’.

Here we give 5 pretty clear reasons why local growing should be the norm…

Quality Assured Cannabis

Whether you live in the US, The UK or Europe, you’ll have the same problems with the weed you’re getting hold of. In the US, it’s the Mexican imports while the UK and mainland Europe are regularly pulling in the North African imports. Whether, it’s weed or brick you’re getting, you should be asking the same question. What’s gone into this on its intercontinental journey? With this kind of mass smuggling and undoubtedly mass cultivating, you simply have no idea what processes are used to grow and maintain the weed.

It’s not like it’s a standards approved product so the fertilisers and stimulants could be making this natural herb as unnatural as Kristen Stewarts smile and that’s not even taking into account the other potential additions they make to boost their crop along the way.

With local cannabis growth, you can be a little more assured about the process. It’s effectively the same as a small local market. Less preservatives and more wholesome products all round.

Cutting Out the Middle Man

If you want an apple, it always tastes best picked straight from the tree. The same rule applies to pretty much any produce including weed. Buying from a dealer just means that there is one more person in the process who is not strictly necessary, ramping up the cost and pushing you further from the source. Sure, I’m leaving out the fact that in most cases this is illegal, but the process is effectively the same.

If on the other hand you had access to a local grower you would be able to see how their crop is grown, getting a better eye for the quality and a better price. Plus being able to see the product from marijuana seeds to full blown plants will certainly make you happier to hand over your money.

Legal Moderation

One defining point on the step towards controlled legalisation of cannabis is undoubtedly going to be support for local farming. One of the main issues that is holding back the legalisation of the plant is the government’s inability to moderate it effectively. Already in certain US states, declared medicinal marijuana outlets and cultivators have proven how well monitored such a commodity can be.

Also, while government control will inevitably bring in greater taxation on the plant similarly to tobacco or alcohol, it will almost certainly bring the standard price down. An illegal import commands a high price tag due to the inherent risks involved. Think alcohol prices in prohibition America.

When states and countries are allowed to grow cannabis as part of a taxable business, whether for medicinal use, recreation or hemp for textiles, insulation …the list goes on, then the economic benefits will become apparent.

Cull the Cartels

Just like Al Capone during prohibition, importing illegal produce is always to some degree funding organised crime. Every gram of cocaine is paid for in blood before money ever reaches the table and while less evident, cannabis is to a degree in the same boat. Border crossings between Mexico and America are often driven by drug trafficking and in many cases fund the Mexican and Colombian cartels. The same moral issues are apparent throughout Europe as people try to ignore the clearly dark underbelly of drug smuggling and farming.

Of course most of the violence and blood money in these cases is tied to the more dangerous narcotics. Consider the fact that Canadian grass comes in with relative ease compared to the combined narcotic and weed running of South America.

That said, the problem is still there in any case. With cannabis however, more can be done to curb this. Putting the power in the hands of respectable local businesses to grow and distribute weed effectively castrates the smugglers.

Better Medicinal Testing

One of the key reasons right now for the semi-legal state of cannabis in America is due to its potential for medical applications. Used to treat AIDs related illnesses, symptoms of cancer and chronic pain, cannabis has already proven its effectiveness as a medicine.

Every now and then we’ll see further research but it is likely to always be limited and inhibited by governmental control. A broader range of local growers would allow greater resources for testing, wider ranges of treatment and potentially, a host of undiscovered health benefits which these medical seeds could contain.

So there you have it, 5 reasons why cannabis should be grown locally. Maybe in the near future we’ll see a bit more of this as the government’s wake up to the fact that cannabis was around long before they were and will be, long after they’ve blocked their last proposition.

Cannabliss is an advocate for the legalisation of cannabis seeds the world over.

---
Follow ISMOKE Magazine on Twitter @ISMOKEMAG
ISMOKE Magazine on Facebook

8 Reasons to End Prohibition of All Drugs Immediately

NORML image

J.G. Vibes
Activist Post

The drug war is one of the most misunderstood subjects in the mainstream political dialogue, even among people who are sympathetic to the plight of responsible drug users. It is rare for someone to come out and say that all drugs should be legal, but in all honesty this is the only logically consistent stance on the issue. To say that some drugs should be legal while others should not is still giving credence to the punishment paradigm and overlooking the external consequences of drug prohibition, or prohibition of any object for that matter.

There is no doubt that drug abuse is a serious issue in our culture, primarily because people are so depressed and beaten down that they self medicate just to be able to tolerate the average day. However, a prohibition policy is a policy of violence, because if you happen to be caught with any of these banned items you will be forcefully taken against your will and put in a cage, and if you dare to prevent this kidnap from taking place you will inevitably be killed. This is the fundamental issue surrounding the drug war that we need to be focused on. Instead of bickering over how to slightly reform drug policy, or arguing about which drug is more harmful than the other, we need to be pointing out that prohibition itself is an inherently violent policy that rests upon the stone age concept of punishment.

As I alluded to earlier, there are many external factors that are effected by the drug war that many people don’t take into account. That is because when you carry out acts of violence, even in the form of punishment, you then create a ripple effect which extends far beyond the bounds of the original circumstance to effect many innocent people down the line. The following list delves into those external factors to illustrate how drug users and non users alike, would be a lot better off if prohibition ended immediately.

(1) – Reduce Violent Crime – The steady increase in violent crime over the past few decades is directly correlated with the escalation of the drug war. As we saw during the times of alcohol prohibition, when you ban any inanimate object, you create an incentive for people to get involved in the black market distribution of that object. Since there is no accountability, or means of peaceful dispute resolution within the black market, buyers and sellers are forced to resort to violence as their sole means of handling disagreements.

Eventually, this violence spills over into the everyday world and effects everyone’s lives. No one could imagine Budweiser and Miller Lite in a back alley gunfight, but less than a century ago during alcohol prohibition, distributors of the drug were involved in shootouts on a regular basis, just as drug gangs are today. Of course, all of this violence came to an immediate end when alcohol was legalized, however, it was not long before the establishment found a new crusade in the drug war, which allowed them to continue the same policy just with different substances.

(2) Improve Seller Accountability and Drug Safety - In the black market one of the major drawbacks is that there is no accountability among the people selling the drug. Since anyone can get kidnapped and thrown in a cage for even dealing with the stuff, it really doesn’t make sense for people to be plastering their names and logos all over the drugs. In this age of corporate mercantilism logos and branding may seem like a really tacky idea, but when looking at the black market we can see the value in such things. Someone who is selling a product with their name on it, is going to go through far greater lengths to ensure the quality of their product, as opposed to someone who would remain anonymous.

This anonymity creates an incentive for people to be dishonest with what they sell. This could lead to rip offs, or downright contamination of the drug with unwanted harmful substances. This is why there was bathtub gin that would make you go blind if your drank it during alcohol prohibition. This is also the reason why some of the harder street drugs today are cut with toxic chemicals that increase the chance of overdose ten fold. The fact that the drugs need to be smuggled also creates the incentive to make drugs more potent, and thus in some circumstances more dangerous. The increased potency and decreased availability inevitably leads to a massive increase in cost. The increased cost is a whole other issue with its own unique side effects in regaurds to drug safety. When the price of the real drugs go up, people just start huffing paint thinner, smoking bath salts and cooking up crystal meth in their basements, which is then even many times more dangerous than the unbranded drugs on the black market.

(3) – Reduce Drug Availability to Children – Many children have houses that are filled with alcohol, yet most of them find it way easier to get drugs than to get alcohol even though alcohol is legal. Even if there were no legal age restrictions on alcohol, the societal and family norms would be just as effective at deterring children from then a formal prohibition policy. If we look overseas at countries that don’t have age restrictions on alcohol, younger people are oftentimes much more mature and informed about its effects than children in the west, and are more likely to make responsible decisions about mind altering substances. In Portugal where drugs have been decriminalized for some time now there has actually been a double digit drop in drug use by school age children.

(4) – Reduce Nonviolent Prisoner Population – A vast majority of the prisoners in the united states are there for nonviolent non crimes, many of which stem from the drug war. Currently, there are more people in US prisons than were in the gulags of Soviet Russia at its worst. Putting nonviolent people in cages, bringing violence against nonviolent people is a horrible violation of natural law. However, if you have no sympathy or compassion for the casualties in this drug war, I would point again to the external consequences which effect even the most vocal prohibitionist. According to the most cited Judge in the United States, Richard A. Posner, the government spends $41.3 billion per year of your tax money on law enforcement measures against mostly small time drug users.

(5) – Real Crime Can be Dealt With – Even in areas with a declining homicide rate, the murder cases that are going unsolved are continuing to climb. Police departments and buerocrats have a million excuses, but the drug war is one of the primary reasons for this occurrence. On one hand indiscriminate killings become more common than crimes of passion that are easy to figure out, but there is a much more sinister aspect of this as well. If you look at the rate of incarcerations for drug offenses, and how incredibly often drug cases are “solved” and found in favor of the state, it becomes obvious that the police have more of an incentive in their day to day activities to hunt down drug users than murderers. These people aren’t selfless public servants as the propaganda on primetime television would lead you to believe, they are average people just like you and me. They will even tell ya “im just doin my job”, so like most of us, when they are on the job they try to get the most amount of money for the least amount of work, and murder cases are really tough work.

A cop could even miss his quota by taking the time and effort to hunt down a murderer, instead of grabbing a kid with a bag of pot, which is a lot easier to find and a lot easier to catch. Quotas are another thing that many police departments deny, but time and time again evidence surfaces that proves otherwise, recently a former NYPD officer has come forward saying that he used to ticket dead people just to meet his quota. This is not to say that all cops are nasty people, but the way that their jobs are monopolized by the state and focused on the drug war corrupts their position and forces them to hurt innocent people and violate people’s rights even if they have the best of intentions.

(6) – Encourage Genuine Treatment for Addicts – As a result of international drug treaties most of the world has remained trapped in a punishment mindset when it comes to dealing with the social problem of drug addiction. While an addiction may be problematic for the person involved and everyone that they come in contact with, they are not a criminal until they actually hurt someone or damage their property, and even then they are a criminal because of their aforementioned transgression not because of their drug addiction. Even the treatment that we see today is not genuine because it is forced on people and doesent address the reasons why they are doing drugs in the first place. In other words, today's treatment programs just try to bash the idea that “drugs are bad” into peoples heads, instead of really communicating with these them, treating them like human beings and overcoming the underlying issues in their lives that are pushing them towards lives of drug addiction.

(7) – Prevent Drug Overdoses – As I mentioned earlier most drug overdoses that happen today wouldn’t occur if it wasn’t for the artificially high potency of drugs that we see today. However, what is even more sad is that of those overdoses that do happen, many more of them could have been prevented but were not because witnesses were too afraid of the police getting involved to call for help. 9 states out of 50 in the US currently have good Samaritan laws to give legal amnesty to anyone who brings an overdosing person to the hospital, but that measure wouldn’t even be necessary if prohibition wasn’t a factor in the first place. The fact that people are actually afraid to call an ambulance in this country should really tell you something about the level that the police state has risen to.

(8) – Protect Individual Rights – Thanks to the drug war, merely on the whim of saying that they smell something cops are now able to enter homes, search cars and totally violate the rights of nonviolent people. The drug war and terrorism are the two biggest excuses used to violate peoples rights, yet according to the national safety council you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. The very existence of the drug war to begin with, or a prohibition on any object is a fundamental violation of natural rights that should not exist in any civilized society.

If you have any questions or disagreements feel free to email me at jgvibes@aotmr.com

J.G. Vibes is an author, and artist with an established record label and event promotion company that hosts politically charged electronic dance music events. You can keep up with him and his new 87 chapter book Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance at www.aotmr.com where you can also catch his show Voluntary Hippie Radio every Wednesday night from 10pm-12am EST.