The DEA has failed to eradicate marijuana. Now Congress wants it to stop trying.

By Christopher Ingraham November 27 at 12:46 PM

The Drug Enforcement Administration is not having a great year.

The chief of the agency stepped down in April under a cloud of scandal. The acting administrator since then has courted ridicule for saying pot is "probably not" as dangerous as heroin, and more recently he provoked 100,000 petition-signers and seven members of Congress to call for his head after he called medical marijuana "a joke."

This fall, the administration earned a scathing rebuke from a federal judge over its creative interpretation of a law intended to keep it from harassing medical marijuana providers. Then, the Brookings Institution issued a strongly worded report outlining the administration’s role in "stifling medical research" into medical uses of pot.

Unfortunately for the DEA, the year isn’t over yet. Last week, a group of 12 House members led by Ted Lieu (D) of California wrote to House leadership to push for a provision in the upcoming spending bill that would strip half of the funds away from the DEA’s Cannabis Eradication Program and put that money toward programs that "play a far more useful role in promoting the safety and economic prosperity of the American people": domestic violence prevention and overall spending reduction efforts.

Each year, the DEA spends about $18 million in efforts with state and local authorities to pull up marijuana plants being grown indoors and outdoors. The program has been plagued by scandal and controversy in recent years. In the mid-2000s, it became clear that the overwhelming majority of "marijuana" plants netted by the program were actually "ditchweed," or the wild, non-cultivated, non-psychoactive cousin of the marijuana that people smoke.

More recently, overzealous marijuana eradicators have launched heavily armed raids on okra plants and warned the Utah legislature of the threat posed by rabbits who had "cultivated a taste for the marijuana." Last year, the DEA spent an average of roughly $4.20 (yes, really) for each marijuana plant it successfully uprooted. In some states, the cost to taxpayers approached $60 per uprooted plant.

The program has also proven to be ineffective. The idea behind pulling up pot plants is to reduce the supply of marijuana, thereby reducing its use. In 1977, two years before the program’s introduction, less than a quarter of Americans said they’d ever tried pot, according to Gallup. By 2015, after 36 years of federal marijuana eradication efforts, the share of Americans ever trying pot nearly doubled, to 44 percent.

Given that marijuana is legal in some form or another in nearly half of the nation’s states, some lawmakers are saying enough is enough. "The seizure of these plants has served neither an economic nor public-safety nor a health-related purpose," Lieu and his colleagues write. "Its sole impact has been to expend limited federal resources that are better spent elsewhere."

The letter-writers note that the provision to strip $9 million in funding from the program passed on voice vote earlier in the year, "without any opposition from either party." They urge leadership to include the provision in a must-pass spending bill later this year.

Lieu doesn’t want to stop there: Next year he intends to introduce a measure "to eliminate the program completely," he said earlier this year. Whether that actually happens will probably depend on how this year’s measure fares during upcoming spending bill negotiations.

Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.

CONTINUE READING…

Honolulu — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday issued a temporary stay blocking the counting of votes in an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance.

Supreme Court justice blocks Native Hawaiian vote count

Jennifer Sinco Kellerher, Associated Press 1:26 p.m. EST November 27, 2015

Honolulu — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday issued a temporary stay blocking the counting of votes in an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s order also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.

Native Hawaiians are voting to elect delegates for a convention next year to come up with a self-governance document to be ratified by Native Hawaiians. Voting ends Monday.

A group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians is challenging the election, arguing Hawaii residents who don’t have Native Hawaiian ancestry are being excluded from the vote, in violation of their constitutional rights. They argue it’s an unconstitutional, racially exclusive process.

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright in Honolulu ruled last month the purpose of the private election is to establish self-determination for the indigenous people of Hawaii. Those elected won’t be able to alter state or local laws, he said.

The challengers appealed and also filed an emergency motion to block the votes from being counted. Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion, prompting the challengers to appeal to the high court.

“Enormous political, social and economic consequences are at stake,” the application to the Supreme Court said. “The delegates chosen through this election will decide whether to adopt a new government that will affect every individual living in the state, as well as hundreds of thousands of individuals identified as Native Hawaiians.”

They argued without Supreme Court intervention, there would be “no remedy if the votes in this election are counted and the results certified,” the application said. “This election cannot be undone.

CONTINUE READING…

Michigan Sheriffs Spend Medical Marijuana Funds on iPads, Tasers and New Trucks

 

By Mike Adams · Thu Nov 19, 2015

While Michigan law enforcement is busy concocting loopholes to punish registered patients for possession of marijuana, a new report finds that many local sheriffs offices are also taking advantage of the funds generated from the state’s medical marijuana program in order to buy purchase items such as iPads, Tasers, and new vehicles.

According to a report from The Compassionate Chronicles, a number of Michigan sheriffs have been using money from the Michigan Medical Marihuana Fund to make questionable purchases.

The website points out that when Governor Rick Snyder signed House Bill 5313 last year, the fund, which is supported by money paid in by participating patients and caregivers, was intended to be used by local law enforcement “for the operation and oversight of the Michigan medical marihuana program… operation and oversight grants are for education, communication and enforcement of the Michigan medical marihuana act.”

However, out of the $3 million made available to local sheriffs, only around $167,000 was distributed, with just over $116,000 reportedly spent. It seems that out of Michigan’s 83 counties, only four sheriffs’ offices applied for grants. And while all of them were approved, not all of the money was spent as it was originally intended.

In Macomb County, where the local sheriff’s department received more than $63,000, the report shows that officers “did not have the opportunity to attend training,” but the department did purchase a 2015 Dodge Durango and a trailer “to assist” them in investigating participants in the medical marijuana program.

The Sanilac County Sheriff’s Office, which collected nearly $19,000, spent their money on a trailer to haul their ATVs, dress clothing for public presentations, and other clothing needed, perhaps, to look fashionable while conducting raids. However, the report also indicates that almost $4,800 was spent on iPads and around $5,400 on Tasers.

Other jurisdictions cashed in on the fund to pay their officers’ wages. In Lapeer County, which was given over $36,000, the department spent 86 percent of it to pay salaries. The rest, while not documented in detail, was said to have gone toward equipment and evidence storage.

Not all of the four counties approved for grants avoided participation in educational programs designed to help them better understand the medical marijuana program. The St. Clair County Drug Task Force “did attend a much-needed 3 day training in Lansing regarding medical marijuana grow operations.” Yet, the force still spent the majority (81 percent) of their allotted $48,917 on paying officer salaries.

While some of the departments mentioned using the funds for flyover missions to help them eradicate illegal marijuana operations, none of money seems to have gone towards helicopters.

Mike Adams is a contributing writer for HIGH TIMES. You can follow him on Twitter @adamssoup and on Facebook.com/mikeadamsofficial

CONTINUE READING…

After federal raids, U.S. tribes cautioned about marijuana

SANTA FE, N.M. — Tribes across the U.S. are finding marijuana is risky business nearly a year after a Justice Department policy indicated they could grow and sell pot under the same guidelines as states.

Play Video

Justice Department clears the air on states’ marijuana laws

Federal raids on tribal cannabis operations in California followed by a South Dakota tribe’s move this month to burn its crop amid fears it could be next have raised questions over whether there’s more to complying with DOJ standards than a department memo suggested last December.

The uncertainty — blamed partly on thin DOJ guidelines, the fact that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal laws, and a complex tangle of state, federal and tribal law enforcement oversight on reservations — has led attorneys to urge tribal leaders to weigh the risks involved before moving forward with legalizing and growing pot.

"Everybody who is smart is pausing to look at the feasibility and risks of growing hemp and marijuana," said Lance Gumbs, a former chairman of the Shinnecock Tribe in New York and regional vice president of the National Congress of American Indians. "But are we giving up on it? Absolutely not."

At a conference on tribal economic development held in Santa Fe, tribal leaders and attorneys said Wednesday that the raids have shown there may be more red tape for tribes to negotiate when it comes to legalizing cannabis than states have faced.

That’s especially the case for tribes that are within states where marijuana is not legal. In those cases, tribes may face the challenge of figuring out how to bring cannabis seeds onto reservations without crossing a state jurisdiction, and sheriffs and state officials are bound to be less approving of marijuana, said Blake Trueblood, director of business development for the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, host of the conference.

The DOJ memo sent to U.S. attorneys last December directed them not to prioritize prosecuting federal marijuana laws in most cases where tribes legalized the drug for medical or recreational use. The memo calls for tribes to follow an eight-point policy standard that includes taking measures to keep pot out of the hands of children and criminal networks, and not transport it across federal or state jurisdictions where it remains illegal.

"Industrial hemp, medical marijuana and maybe recreational marijuana present a lot of opportunity. But for now, the best advice is to proceed with caution," said Michael Reif, an attorney for the Menominee tribe in Wisconsin, where tribal leaders filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday after federal agents recently seized thousands of hemp plants grown for research. "We’re seeing the ramifications of things being unclear in a way states didn’t."

The Flandreau Santee Sioux in South Dakota – a state where marijuana isn’t legal – was the first to approve recreational pot under tribal law with a vote in June, and was one of the most aggressive about entering the industry, with plans to open the nation’s first marijuana resort on its reservation north of Sioux Falls.

But after weeks of discussions with authorities who signaled a raid was possible, the tribe announced last week it had burned all of its marijuana plants. Anthony Reider, the tribe’s president, told The Associated Press the main holdup centered on whether the tribe could sell marijuana to non-Indians, along with issues over where the seed used for planting originated.

He suggested that by burning the crops, the tribe could have a clean slate to relaunch a grow operation in consultation with authorities.

In California, the Alturas and Pit River Indian rancherias launched tribally run marijuana operations that were raided by federal authorities, with agents seizing 12,000 marijuana plants in July. The regional U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement that the two neighboring tribes planned to distribute the pot off tribal lands and the large-scale operations may have been financed by a foreign third-party foreign.

It’s not clear if the two tribes have plans for a new marijuana venture, and calls from the AP were not immediately returned.

The California and South Dakota tribes are three of just six so far this year that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana on their reservations.

The Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington state is another, and just opened a store last week for retail sales of the drug. But most expect the tribe to face fewer legal challenges because Washington allows for recreational marijuana use and the tribe entered into a compact with the state that sets guidelines for taxing pot sales.

"The tribes are not going to be immune to what the local attitudes toward marijuana are going to be," Trueblood said. "If there’s one 30,000-feet takeaway from this year, it’s that you’re not going to be successful if you don’t work with you local governments or U.S. attorneys.

CONTINUE READING…

Consuming Marijuana During Pregnancy Does Not Make A Mother Unfit

Since 1985 cigarette packages sold in the United States have carried four rotating warnings from the surgeon general, including this one: “Smoking by Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, and Low Birth Weight.” Since 1989 the labels of alcoholic beverages have included this government-mandated warning: “According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects.” This week the American Medical Association (AMA) proposed a similar label for cannabis products:  “Marijuana use during pregnancy and breastfeeding poses potential harms.”

The proposed warning represents a concession to political reality by the AMA, which opposes marijuana legalization but seems to recognize that pot prohibition is inexorably crumbling. The AMA’s wording is notably milder than the warnings for tobacco and alcohol—appropriately so, since the evidence that cannabis consumption during pregnancy can harm the fetus is less clear than the evidence that smoking and heavy drinking can. In any case, providing information about marijuana’s hazards is surely preferable to the punitive moralism of the war on drugs.

Hollie Sanford holding Nova (Image: WJW)

Hollie Sanford holding Nova (Image: WJW)

The latter approach still prevails in most of the country, as illustrated by what happened to Hollie Sanford and her baby girl, Nova. After Sanford gave birth at Cleveland’s Fairview Hospital on September 26, Nova was snatched away from her because the newborn’s first stool tested positive for a marijuana metabolite. Against the recommendation of county social workers (who are usually the villains in stories like this), Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Magistrate Eleanore Hilow decided the drug test result by itself justified separating Nova from her parents. They were not reunited until last week, after a judge overruled Hilow.

Sanford used cannabis tea to treat morning sickness and severe sciatic nerve pain while she was pregnant with Nova, as she had when she was pregnant with Nova’s brother, Logan, who is now almost 2. Her research convinced her marijuana was a safer choice than the painkillers she had been prescribed, and she may be right about that. The Food and Drug Administration puts opioids such as hydrocodone and oxycodone in Category C, meaning “animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans,” although “potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.” The evidence concerning marijuana’s effects on fetuses is likewise mixed and incomplete.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse, whose raison d’etre is highlighting the hazards of illegal intoxicants, says “research in rats suggests that exposure to even low concentrations of THC late in pregnancy could have profound and long-lasting consequences for both brain and behavior of offspring.” It adds that “human studies have shown that some babies born to women who used marijuana during their pregnancies respond differently to visual stimuli, tremble more, and have a high-pitched cry, which could indicate problems with neurological development.” NIDA also notes that “children prenatally exposed to marijuana are more likely to show gaps in problem-solving skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive.” But it admits that “more research is needed…to disentangle marijuana’s specific effects from other environmental factors, including maternal nutrition, exposure to nurturing/neglect, and use of other substances by mothers.”

CONTINUE READING…

New Hampshire Committee Approves Bill to Curb “Policing for Profit” via Asset Forfeiture, Federal Loophole Remains

CONCORD, NH (Nov. 17) – Last week, a New Hampshire House committee passed a bill to reform and restrict civil asset forfeiture. But remaining in the bill is a loophole that would allow law enforcement to work with the feds to skirt more stringent state laws.

Introduced by Rep. Dan McGuire (R-Merrimack) along with ten bipartisan legislators, House Bill 636 (HB636) would completely eliminate civil asset forfeiture under state law and only allow forfeiture via criminal proceedings after prosecutors secure a criminal conviction. It passed in the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 12 by a 14-5 vote.

HB636 would require the state to produce “clear and convincing evidence” before a forfeiture is allowed. In addition, innocent owners of property would have their possessions returned “unless the alleged innocent owner thereof was a consenting party to the crime” as long as they filed a claim within 10 days. Forfeited money and auction proceeds would be used to “pay all outstanding recorded liens on the forfeited property, then to… pay reasonable non-personnel expenses, with all remaining funds to be deposited into the state’s general fund.”

The House Judiciary Committee amended HB636 before ultimately passing the bill. The amendments changed language to earmark forfeiture funds obtained within drug cases from a “drug forfeiture fund” to the general fund. This removes forfeiture-related proceeds from directly funding law enforcement, which has been one of the most abusive practices that has proliferated asset forfeitures nationwide.

The state of New Hampshire was given a terrible rating by the Institute for Justice for their civil asset forfeiture laws in 2010, primarily because “the burden rests on [the property owner] to raise an innocent owner defense, effectively making [them] guilty until proven innocent” and “law enforcement has a profit motive to pursue forfeitures because they directly keep 45 percent of the proceeds.” HB636 would ban those practices immediately.

FEDERAL LOOPHOLE

As currently drafted, however, HB636 leaves a loophole open that would make the proposed state reforms generally ineffective in practice.

The bill needs to include amendment language to stop state and local law enforcement from turning cases over to the federal government, thereby circumventing any restrictions placed on asset forfeiture at the state level.

This very scenario plays out frequently in states with strong asset forfeiture laws like California. Police simply avoid such restrictions by turning cases involving seized assets over to the feds. In return, state and local agencies get up to 80 percent of the proceeds from forfeited assets back through the Federal “Equitable Sharing Program.”

Simple language can close this loophole.

“A law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority may not directly or indirectly transfer seized property to any federal law enforcement authority or other federal agency unless the value of the seized property exceeds $50,000, excluding the potential value of the sale of contraband.”

As the Tenth Amendment Center previously reported the federal government has inserted itself into the California’s asset forfeiture debate. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.

Why?

We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.

STATES PUSH BACK

States are rapidly taking notice and passing reforms to halt this abusive practice. New Mexico enacted a law this year prohibiting the confiscation of property from suspects of a crime until after they are convicted. Montana passed a significant but less comprehensive reform plan tackling asset forfeiture this year as well.

Now that HB636 passed the House Judiciary Committee, it is set to receive a full vote in the state House.

CONTINUE READING…

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW Mark Thornton: Cannabis Legalization Starting to Advance Rapidly –

Anthony Wile: Hello, Mark. It’s been over a year since we last interviewed you. Give us an update on your recent work.

Mark Thornton: I was asked to debate the War on Drugs at Oxford Union in June of last year. I was happy to see such a political elitist institution interested in debating the War on Drugs. Maybe the new requirement for paying tuition is having a positive effect or it could be just part of the worldwide trend against the War on Drugs and political institutions in general.

Recently, I was asked to speak to the Atlanta Economic Club at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. I spoke about the Skyscraper Curse, a topic that I was criticized about by the Economist magazine. It’s a topic that I have been talking about often these days as we look out at a pending Skyscraper Signal in Saudi Arabia and the collapse of the world economy.

Anthony Wile: We continue to follow the cannabis trend at The Daily Bell, and given your focus on "the economics of prohibition" over the years, would like to talk with you about several recent developments, especially in regard to two areas – the economics of prohibition and tariffs and price controls. When we talked with you in March 2014 you talked about "UNGASS 2016 and the Enormous Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana." Given the progress to date, what do you expect to come from UNGASS 2016? And how would you assess the working sessions being hosted around the world in preparation for the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Drugs, in April 2016?

Mark Thornton: Well, I have heard about the leaks and those leaks seem quite promising. I believe they basically confirmed what we hoped and expected from UNGASS 2016. It is complete reversal from 1998. In 1998 the report said that policy could achieve a drug-free world. That is an insane position to take, like no more storms, no more automobile accidents. It is the Pollyanna delusion. In 2016 we expect the UNGASS to issue a harm reduction recommendation where illicit drug consumption and possession would not be criminal acts that could lead to a prison sentence. This is a sane policy position. Prison sentences for illicit drug users are clearly harmful to the consumer (who now has a criminal record) and to government (cost of courts and prisons, etc.) and it does not deter consumption, or crime, or other negative consequences.

It is not the correct position of full legalization, but decriminalization has achieved good results in Portugal and Ireland has announced its intention to follow Portugal’s lead. With UNGASS 2016 recommendations we can expect many more counties to follow suit with legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of the hard drugs. Many governments have already turned a blind eye towards illicit drug consumers in anticipation of UNGASS 2016 and are ready to enact harm reduction policies such as decriminalization, marijuana legalization, and needle exchange programs. So I am hopeful that we will see a windfall of policy liberalization in many countries and then political change in countries that do not follow suit.

There will be some pushback from countries like the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The for-profit prison companies in the US will spend lots of money trying to defeat public opinion. Someone should keep an eye on them and their political and lobbying spending. If politicians knew that anyone accepting for-profit prison money would be outed as an ally of crony capitalism, it could be helpful.

Anthony Wile: What about individual response from member nations? Many have already implemented new regulations but I’ve stated my expectation that many changes will likely need to be made to at least parts of those regulatory regimes post-UNGASS, in order to come in line with treaty agreements.

Mark Thornton: Yes, it will be a messy process. Government always is a mess. Some will stick with the War on Drugs, some will adjust within the new framework, and others will venture outside the new guidelines and treaty agreements. As I mentioned, Ireland has already jumped the gun in preparing for full decriminalization. There will be experimentation and lots of reviewing of the evidence. I am sure there will be reform efforts that fail, but overall I am not worried about the long term because we have solid evidence from Portugal.

Medical marijuana legalization has been a big success. Recreational marijuana legalization has been a big success, rather than the disaster that was predicted, for Colorado and Washington. Marijuana and hemp are going to be big businesses in areas as diverse as medicine, textiles, chemicals, building materials, and fuel. They can be grown in diverse climates without herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and without much labor.

It is a "master ingredient" like petroleum, except it’s renewable. So it’s appealing to our progressive and environmentalist friends and it’s the type of thing that will turn the current and future generations of entrepreneurs to create a giant leap in human progress. I think this potential will force regulators to innovate and fix problems in their systems.

Anthony Wile: I’ve also cautioned excited investors to take a deep breath and wait a bit for the market to shake out, for this very reason. Comment?

Mark Thornton: It is wise to caution investors. Any new product or ingredient experiences a great deal of chaos in the early years. I expect thousands of new and existing businesses to get involved in cannabis and hemp, everything from retailing recreational marijuana, to new cutting-edge medical applications, to competing with the petrol-chemical industry. Initially there could be hundreds of firms in each "product space," but over time each will come to be dominated by a small number of firms. Think about automobiles, soda drinks, and personal computers. They started out with more than a hundred entrants and ended up with just a couple of primary domestic producers. Therefore, it is very difficult to pick winners at this early stage. By the way, there are no Tweets with #marijuanaprofits yet!

Anthony Wile: An argument is made that conflates legalization efforts with promoting the "normalization" of drug use. We suggest, rather, that ending prohibition simply accepts human nature for what it is and enables any adult person seeking to utilize the cannabis plant for either medicinal or adult use recreational purposes in a safe and maturely managed manner. We suggest maturity prevail in this conversation. Recently, the pro-legalization campaign in Ohio featured "Buddie," a marijuana mascot on street corners and public areas in view of children and families, in essence promoting cannabis use. This is quite reminiscent of the "Joe Camel" tobacco advertising that was dangerous and offensive, long ago relegated to the dustbin of history as an unsuitable figure for big tobacco. This kind of promotion is certainly not consistent with public values. Perhaps that’s part of why they lost the vote.

Would you agree that the main objective is to remove the black market from the equation but not to encourage drug use per se or to focus on expanding the usage of cannabis? Does anyone really think a costumed marijuana bud is going to fly?

Mark Thornton: Yes, I completely agree. I argue that the policy of government prohibition causes us all much harm and provides no benefits. Legalization creates opportunities for many economic benefits. However, when it comes to using marijuana for recreational use I am not an advocate. It may be less dangerous than alcohol, but that does not mean I recommend consuming it. It is a drug after all.

The situation in Ohio is important to discuss. The recreational legalization measure on the ballot was recently defeated and properly so. It would have changed the state constitution and put 10 monopoly marijuana growers into the constitution! These 10 monopolists were the ones that wrote and paid for the measure to be put on the ballot. They are the ones that paid for "Buddie" to be on the streets of Ohio. Naturally, crony capitalist/monopolists want to encourage consumption of their product. It is just shameful.

It is important to note that the defeated ballot measure was opposed by many advocates of legalization. Another measure to prevent any monopoly from being written into the state constitution was also passed by the voters. Hopefully, legalization will come in the next round of voting in Ohio. Overall, I consider the ballot results a great victory.

PLEASE CONTINUE READING THIS INTERVIEW AT LINK BELOW!

– See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/36640/Anthony-Wile-Mark-Thornton/#sthash.ft32TNJ2.dpuf

The Truth About Long Hair…

Originally posted Monday, March 31, 2014 …

This information about hair has been hidden from the public since the Vietnam War.

Our culture leads people to believe that hair style is a matter of personal preference, that hair style is a matter of fashion and/or convenience, and that how people wear their hair is simply a cosmetic issue. Back in the Vietnam war, however, an entirely different picture emerged, one that has been carefully covered up and hidden from public view.

In the early nineties, Sally [name changed to protect privacy] was married to a licensed psychologist who worked at a VA medical hospital. He worked with combat veterans with PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of them had served in Vietnam. Sally said, “I remember clearly an evening when my husband came back to our apartment on Doctor’s Circle carrying a thick official looking folder in his hands. Inside were hundreds of pages of certain studies commissioned by the government.

He was in shock from the contents. What he read in those documents completely changed his life. From that moment on my conservative, middle-of-the-road husband grew his hair and beard and never cut them again. What is more, the VA Medical Center let him do it, and other very conservative men in the staff followed his example. As I read the documents, I learned why.

It seems that during the Vietnam War, special forces in the war department had sent undercover experts to comb American Indian Reservations looking for talented scouts, for tough young men trained to move stealthily through rough terrain. They were especially looking for men with outstanding, almost supernatural tracking abilities. Before being approached, these carefully selected men were extensively documented as experts in tracking and survival. With the usual enticements, the well-proven smooth phrases used to enroll new recruits, some of these Indian trackers were then enlisted.

Once enlisted, an amazing thing happened. Whatever talents and skills they had possessed on the reservation seemed to mysteriously disappear, as recruit after recruit failed to perform as expected in the field.

Serious causalities and failures of performance led the government to contract expensive testing of these recruits, and this is what was found. When questioned about their failure to perform as expected, the older recruits replied consistently that when they received their required military haircuts, they could no longer ‘sense’ the enemy, they could no longer access a ‘sixth sense,’ their ‘intuition’ no longer was reliable, they couldn’t ‘read’ subtle signs as well or access subtle extrasensory information. So the testing institute recruited more Indian trackers, let them keep their long hair, and tested them in multiple areas. Then they would pair two men together who had received the same scores on all the tests. They would let one man in the pair keep his hair long, and gave the other man a military haircut. Then the two men retook the tests.

Time after time the man with long hair kept making high scores. Time after time, the man with the short hair failed the tests in which he had previously scored high scores.

Here is a Typical Test The recruit is sleeping out in the woods. An armed ‘enemy’ approaches the sleeping man. The long haired man is awakened out of his sleep by a strong sense of danger and gets away long before the enemy is close, long before any sounds from the approaching enemy are audible. In another version of this test, the long haired man senses an approach and somehow intuits that the enemy will perform a physical attack. He follows his ‘sixth sense’ and stays still, pretending to be sleeping, but quickly grabs the attacker and ‘kills’ him as the attacker reaches down to strangle him. This same man, after having passed these and other tests, then received a military haircut and consistently failed these tests, and many other tests that he had previously passed.

So the document recommended that all Indian trackers be exempt from military haircuts. In fact, it required that trackers keep their hair long.

The mammalian body has evolved over millions of years. Survival skills of human and animal at times seem almost supernatural. Science is constantly coming up with more discoveries about the amazing abilities of man and animal to survive. Each part of the body has highly sensitive work to perform for the survival and well being of the body as a whole.

The body has a reason for every part of itself. Hair is an extension of the nervous system, it can be correctly seen as exteriorized nerves, a type of highly evolved ‘feelers’ or ‘antennae’ that transmit vast amounts of important information to the brain stem, the limbic system, and the neocortex. Not only does hair in people, including facial hair in men, provide an information highway reaching the brain, hair also emits energy, the electromagnetic energy emitted by the brain into the outer environment.

This has been seen in Kirlian photography when a person is photographed with long hair and then rephotographed after the hair is cut. When hair is cut, receiving and sending transmissions to and from the environment are greatly hampered. This results in numbing out. Cutting of hair is a contributing factor to unawareness of environmental distress in local ecosystems. It is also a contributing factor to insensitivity in relationships of all kinds. It contributes to sexual frustration.

Conclusion In searching for solutions for the distress in our world, it may be time for us to consider that many of our most basic assumptions about reality are in error. It may be that a major part of the solution is looking at us in the face each morning when we see ourselves in the mirror.

The story of Samson and Delilah in the Bible has a lot of encoded truth to tell us.  When Delilah cut Samson’s hair, the once undefeatable Samson was defeated.

Credits: C. Young, United Truth Seekers via Spirit Science and Metaphysics …

Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-long-hair.html?m=1

Stars, Stripes, and Hemp Fly over Capitol

  • By Tim Marema
  • November 11, 2015

    Photo by Donnie Hedden 2015

    A plant the federal law says is a Schedule I controlled substance was used to make the U.S. flag that will fly over the Capitol on Veterans Day. Industrial hemp could be a boon for small farmers, say proponents, including the U.S. veteran who grew the hemp used to make the flag.

    An American flag made of industrial hemp grown in Kentucky by U.S. military veterans will be flown over the U.S. Capitol for the first time on Veterans Day, according to a press release from organizers of the event.

    The event is in support of federal legislation that would restore the industrial hemp industry in America.

    The 2014 farm bill granted states limited permission to allow cultivation of industrial hemp for agricultural research or pilot projects. Kentucky Senator and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was among the legislators who supported the measure.

    “Hemp was a crop that built our nation,” said Mike Lewis, a U.S. veteran and Kentucky hemp farmer who directs the Growing Warriors Project. The project grew the hemp used to make the flag.

    “Betsy Ross’ first American flag was made of hemp. We have flags made in China now. That’s almost sacrilegious,” Lewis said. He served in the “Commander in Chiefs Guard” of the 3rd U.S. Infantry from 1992 to 1995.

    Twenty-seven U.S. states have enacted or are considering laws to allow industrial hemp cultivation or are petitioning the federal government to declassify industrial hemp as a drug.  The proposed federal legislation would remove industrial hemp from the controlled substance list.

    Joe Schroeder with Freedom of Seed and Feed said industrial hemp could be a big help to America’s small farmers.  “If a hemp industry is to thrive in America again and provide the stability for so many communities that tobacco once did, it has to start with the stability of the small farmer,” Schroeder said.

    Hemp advocates say the fibrous plant can be used as raw material in clothing, carpet, beauty products, paper, and even as building material, insulation, and clutch linings.

    About 30 countries allow cultivation of industrial hemp, according to a 2015 Congressional Research Service report. These nations produced about 380 million tons of hemp in 2011. The U.S. imported $37 million in hemp products in 2014, according to the report.

    Al Jazeera America reports that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s last record of a hemp crop was in the 1950s. The plant was grown to make rope during World War II. Its production peaked in 1943 when 150 million pounds were harvested from 146,200 acres.

    Hemp is related to the plant that produces marijuana but contains negligible amounts of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Political observers say the effort to change U.S. law on hemp is part of a larger rethinking of cannabis laws.

    An opponent of marijuana legalization told Al Jazeera last year he doubted that a change in the U.S. industrial hemp laws would have much impact on the marijuana debate.

    “On the one hand, I think it’s part of a larger agenda to normalize marijuana by a few,” said Kevin Sabet, director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a national alliance that opposes pot legalization. “On the other hand, will it have any difference at the end of the day? I would be highly skeptical of that.”

    CONTINUE READING…

  • Ian Bell: Let’s end the war on drugs by making them legal

    An Italian policeman holds a bag full of cocaine which was found in a car in the Scampia area of  Naples

    IT could be a pub quiz question. What do Armenia and Argentina have in common? The Czech Republic and Chile? Paraguay and Poland? The answer isn’t football. Each has decided, in some fashion, that if you just say no to drugs, you say nothing useful at all.

    Depending on the definitions used, there are between 25 and 30 such countries. Their laws, methods, aims and ambitions vary. Some have legalised drugs. Some have “re-legalised”. A few never got around to prohibition to begin with. Most have experimented – for personal use, you understand – with a gateway policy, decriminalisation.

    Last week the Republic of Ireland decided, in effect, that what’s good enough for Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Estonia, the Netherlands and others might help with its own liberation from the half-century of failure we still call, without irony, the war on drugs. With a leaked report suggesting that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is on the brink of advocating decriminalisation, Ireland joins a growing consensus.

    Britain doesn’t want to hear about that. Or rather, the Conservative Government doesn’t want to hear the accusation “soft on drugs” from its press sponsors. Amid a fragrant haze of hypocrisy, the line is that there will be no change, funding cuts aside, in UK drugs strategy. Meanwhile, police forces the length of these islands are improvising policies of their own.

    In Ireland, serious thinking has been going on. The result, if carried through, will be the decriminalisation of drugs in “personal use” quantities combined with the introduction of injection (“consumption”) rooms. Narcotics will remain illegal, but in future – or such is the hope – no-one will be treated as a criminal because of an addiction or a problematic habit. The Irish are making a fundamental distinction.

    Officially, Britain remains tough, tougher than tough, on drugs. Unofficially, an ad hoc pragmatism guides enforcement. A fall of close to a third in cannabis possession offences in England and Wales between 2011-12 and 2014-15 has not happened because dope has lost its allure. With budgets cut to ribbons, police forces have concluded they have better things to do than harass cannabis users.

    There are worse principles a government could apply. In a speech at the London School of Economics last Monday, Aodhain O’ Riordain, the Irish minister responsible for drugs strategy, maintained that a “cultural shift” is required. Addiction should be regarded as a health issue, he argued, both for the sake of individuals and for the benefit of law enforcement. Time and money spent hunting addicts could be better used against a criminal trade.

    O’Riordain advocates decriminalisation, not legalisation. He is not alone in that, though at the LSE he failed to explain the logic. Portugal’s experience over the last 14 years is the Irish minister’s inspiration, as it is for many reluctant conscripts in the war on drugs, but a conspicuous Iberian success remains half an answer to a complicated question.

    With Europe’s highest HIV infection rate among injecting drugs users, Portugal faced an undoubted crisis at the turn of the century. Desperate, it decided that drug use or possession should remain offences, but not criminal offences. The money spent on treatment and prevention was doubled. The police meanwhile began to ignore mere marijuana use. And the HIV rate started to fall.

    It has not been plain sailing since. According to some studies, hard drug use has increased. More people have sought treatment, perhaps as a result, but the number of drug-related deaths has declined. Pressure on courts has eased, meanwhile, and the street price of drugs has fallen. Adolescent use seems to be waning, but with the police still seizing several tonnes of cocaine each year, the effect of reform on organised crime has been hard to measure.

    That, though, is an aspect of decriminalisation too often overlooked. On its own, without a wider health policy or O’Riordain’s “person-centred” strategy, it does not “solve” a narcotics problem. Chiefly, it spares individuals the brutal effects – prison, stigma, unemployment, existence without treatment or medical care – that are legacies of the unending war. But decriminalisation alone is not enough.

    It counts as a start, nevertheless, and that is more than Britain has managed. Last October, the Home Office caused strife within the coalition by publishing a report, Drugs: International Comparators, that looked at the experience of Portugal and a dozen other countries. To the dismay of Tories, the survey said there was “no apparent correlation” between tough laws and the level of drug use. While decriminalisation would not curb use, there were “indications that decriminalisation can reduce the burden on criminal justice systems”.

    Who’d have thought? In the ensuing battle, the LibDem Norman Lamb resigned as a Home Office minister while policy – “this government has absolutely no intention of decriminalising drugs” – was reaffirmed. Faced with a problem, Britain had not got beyond failing to put two and two together.

    Why decriminalise? For an Irish recreational user, far less an addict, the question is superfluous. Nevertheless, O’Riordain, like his peers around the world, has taken a first step and refused the second. As the Home Office report suggested, decriminalisation has little effect on use. People go on buying their blood-stained substances and enriching some of the nastiest people on the planet. A few more police go to work hunting traffickers. Users are no longer persecuted. The mafias remain.

    In 2006, the Italian journalist Roberto Saviano published Gomorrah, an expose, in the proper sense, of the Neapolitan Camorra. He has been forced to live since under armed guard in secret locations. Nevertheless, this summer he published Zero Zero Zero, a title derived from a traffickers’ joke name for pure cocaine. The book is horrifying, but not just for the routine, fantastical violence. In Saviano’s account, the cartels’ trade has corrupted the world.

    UNODC will mention “vast sums” that “compromise” economies, buy politicians and rig elections. Saviano will tell you that drugs money courses through the world’s financial systems, that it touches all of us, and that it alone kept banking afloat in parts of the Americas during the great crash. He calls it narco-capitalism.

    The journalist has dedicated his life to opposing the mafias. Nevertheless, in the last pages of Zero Zero Zero he writes: “As terrible as it may seem, total legalisation may be the only answer. A horrendous response, horrible perhaps, agonising. But the only one that can stop everything.”

    That strikes me as true. By one calculation, the United States alone had spent $150 billion on the drugs war by 2010. Any victories? Or just the news that Barack Obama has been commuting sentences on dozens of hapless souls locked away for life because of recreational use? According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as of September 26, 48.4 per cent of the entire US inmate population, 93,821 individuals, had been locked up for drug offences. Some war; some victory.

    So legalise the lot. Those who want to use drugs will go on using drugs. In a country with common sense, like Ireland, they might get the help they need. But Saviano is right. Only one thing will put the traffickers out of business and end this hopeless war.

    CONTINUE READING…