Subject: To_Dr_Katelaris
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:32:34 +0200

http://www.democracydefined.org/
The Home Page of The Democracy Defined Campaign
for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY. 
cam
The Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,
doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges (U.S. & U.K.).
(Standard English Spelling)

VERITAS, COGNITIO, IUSTITIA, LIBERTAS.

"Democratic Trial by Jury alone proffers the preservation of individuals without prejudice
in regard to their nationality, race, gender, religion and background."
See Democracy Defined Essay EIS#10 "We the People and the Matter of Words."
~
RELEGALISATION, AMNESTY & RESTITUTION.

OPEN LETTER to Dr. Andrew Katelaris on Cannabis.

Dear Andrew,

The purpose of my writing is to let you know about information of which you are apparently not aware, and which strengthens the position of someone working for relegalised access by the public to cannabis for all its uses. Please take any points we make in the constructive spirit with which they are intended.

My few comments respond briefly to some contents of your e-mails and video from which it is evident that, contrary to what you say in your current e-mail, you and we are most certainly not singing from, as you say, the same "songbook." The "songbook" which seeks to impart truth, knowledge, justice and liberty, does not allow for vagueness; still less for blatant incorrectness.

In our comments, we refer to your e-mails and script of "Billion Dollar Crop" video of which we have seen only the very brief Google extract. Of your presentations to the medical tribunal we have nothing. Yet, in these few pieces which we do have, incorrectness abounds. Based on that, it is a fair presumption that the rest of your material is apocryphal. As explained below, the approach taken by you indicated by your material as seen, and the intrinsic incorrectnesses, aid the prohibition, so one does not have much hope that the rest of your presentations are helpful to the cause of Relegalisation, to the needs of those many people suffering under the prohibition, or indeed, to yourself.

Obviously this e-mail cannot replicate all the facts and philosophy in the 260 large-size pages of THE REPORT, but to confirm how far you are from "singing from the same songbook," you may compare your publicly stated viewpoints on cannabis and what you thought were 'facts' (which it would seem you have culled from the prohibitionists' fictions and unfounded speculations) with those definitive Findings of Fact of the official medico-scientific Empirical Studies collated in THE REPORT.

THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204 has a Foreword by a Nobel laureate former Adviser to U.S. government; is endorsed by a Professor Doctor of Physiology Member of the Royal Society; academics, doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, psychiatry, homeopathy, etc.), environment experts, and judges (U.S. & U.K.). 

THE REPORT collates the Conclusions and Findings of Fact of the official Empirical [i.e., empirical; actual long and short-term clinically monitored use of cannabis by human test subjects] Studies into cannabis smoking and uses. The Empirical Clinical Studies' Findings of Fact are DEFINITIVE. The Findings unanimously conclude: firstly, the benign nature of the non-addictive, non-toxic herb; secondly, numerous efficacious applications in curative and preventive medicine (cf. official Pharmacopoeias), replacing lucrative lines of toxic, addictive ineffectual pharmaceutical laboratory-derived chemical drugs; and thirdly, the complete exoneration of cannabis from 'skill impairment' (including simulated driving tests) and all allegations of mental or physical 'harm', from 'danger', 'carcinosis', 'psychosis', 'amotivation', 'abuse', and 'misuse', etc. The Findings exempt cannabis from legislative controls (prohibition) under harm criteria which is also the case on separate legal grounds. All private cultivation, trade, possession and uses are vindicated. Full technical and scientific attribution for these Findings of Fact is given in THE REPORT; see Parts One through Six; and Index & Bibliography.

Within the context of medico-scientific, technical and legal grounds THE REPORT's thesis concludes that cannabis is and always has been de facto, LEGAL; and that, with further related in-depth criminological expositions (Seven Parts), the national legislation and international treaties of control (prohibition) are unfounded, perjurious, inequitable, crime-engendering, venal, and inherently illegal: prohibition is a premeditated, money-motivated criminal subterfuge; all acts of prosecution and enforcement of the legislation comprise crime per se; Relegalisation (i.e., the return of cannabis to the legal status which applied before the introduction of any controls) is mandated; Amnesty and Restitution are the due of all citizens persecuted under the legislation (as for other Wrongful Penalisation).

- REVIEWS AND ENDORSEMENTS OF -
THE REPORT, CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW
ISBN 9781902848204.
 
"You have done a splendid job of producing a comprehensive summary of the evidence documenting that the prohibition of the production, sale and use of cannabis is utterly unjustified and produces many harmful effects. Any impartial person reading your REPORT will almost certainly end up favouring the re-legalisation of cannabis."
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR MILTON FRIEDMAN, Economics' Adviser to U.S. government; Author, video and TV series writer and presenter; Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago.

"You represent a worthy part of the fight in many countries for the logical and beneficial use of cannabis. I thank you for that."
PROFESSOR PATRICK D. WALL, Author; Professor of Physiology, UMDS St. Thomas's (Teaching) Hospital, London; Fellow of the Royal Society; DM, FRCP.
 
"I am totally amazed at THE REPORT's quality and overall goodness."
DR. ANNE BIEZANEK, Authoress; ChB, BSc, MB, MFHom.

"A fine document."
U.S. JUDGE's letter to Authors.
 
"THE REPORT's thesis is sound."
U.K. JUDGE's letter to Authors.
 
"I did enjoy reading it. THE REPORT should contribute much."
THE HON. JONATHON PORRITT, Bt., Adviser to U.K. government on Environment; Author; Founder, Friends of the Earth; TV series writer and presenter. 

1. EXONERATIVE FACTS.

Andrew,
Regarding your appearances before courts or medical tribunals:

Beware of being tempted to appease your accusers in order to try to preserve a licence to practise. If you concede to their wholly unfounded views and biased, incorrect stance, you lose innocence and the complete vindication which otherwise would derive from the evidence of Empirical and other Studies presented within THE REPORT. You see, cannabis controls are based on actually disproven fabrications of 'harm'. If you adopt some or all of these perjuries of 'harm' you lose your best defence and true justification. You shoot yourself in the foot, as they say. Implicitly, you admit to Guilt of supplying a "dangerous controlled substance" to "sick patients who are the people least able to withstand the 'harm' of using cannabis." You positively invite punishment.

Naïve people trying to obtain 'medical marijuana' for some adverse condition(s) propose limited 'legality' and 'prescription cannabis' on the false grounds that the "benefits to patients outweigh the harm that taking cannabis incurs." These people are invariably ignorant of the official Empirical Studies which exonerate cannabis, show it to have only benign characteristics, and exempt it from prohibition criteria.

Furthermore, there are profound legal grounds which show the inherent illegality and inequity of the legislation; see Part Six, PROHIBITION: THE PROGENITOR OF CRIME. 

The best form of defence is attack. In the cannabis prohibition issue, it is the only defence. To win his case, prove his innocence --- and condemn the criminality of his accusers --- the innocent person utterly rejects and refutes the perjury of his opponent if he is able to do so. As far as your predicament with the medical tribunal is concerned, it is worth noting that the person who genuinely feels he is innocent, directly (but politely) confronts the perjury and prohibitionists' false 'evidence' of 'harm' in cannabis. The innocent person does not accept, still less adopt, his accuser's fabrications by which he is condemned.  

While it is perhaps natural for you to want to argue (viz. your e-mail) for positions on cannabis that you have previously held and stated publicly, it is completely inappropriate to maintain such views after you have learned that the expression of these ideas employs vocabulary which reflects fictions of a 'harm' which is categorically shown by the Empirical Studies not to exist in cannabis; the very fiction by which cannabis is maligned and the prohibition maintained; for example:

2. APOCRYPHAL VOCABULARY:

Andrew, you show you are duped and play into the hands of your prohibitionist accusers when you continue to apply to cannabis such words as "drug" (ref. section on ACCURATE LANGUAGE below), and even now in your current e-mail, "psychoactive."

The word psychoactive is used to describe a characteristic of dangerous, toxic (poisonous) drugs which induce measurable decrements of brain function. Yet, you maintain this incorrect prohibitionist vocabulary despite the fact that...

"The empirical tests of actual use of cannabis herb clinically confirm (i.e., they are replicable) categorically, cannabis does not induce any adversely altered perceptions or impairments of brain function."
See Findings of Fact in Parts One, Three and Four of THE REPORT. Also see below.

If you utilise the same mendacious vocabularly as that which the prohibitionists have carefully prepared for the purpose of prohibiting cannabis, and have publicised for decades, then all you do is reinforce their money-motivated disinformation.

3. COMPARISONS.

In an exacting way similar to the forensic pathologist's meticulous dissection, THE REPORT demonstrates how the Empirical Studies' clinical findings exonerate the herb from all allegations of harm and impairment thereby exempting it from legislative criteria of control. THE REPORT also shows that it is the ulterior money-motive of utmost scale behind cannabis prohibition which has led to the invention of fictions of 'harm' being produced by those who, by careers, complicity, revenues or profit, gain from prohibition.

It is a calculated prohibitionists' ploy to manipulate language in a way that associates non-toxic, non-addictive, non-drug cannabis with harmful, toxic, addictive substances, i.e., drugs, a category which, by definition, includes toxic, addictive alcohol (see THE REPORT).

Parts One, Three, Four & Five of THE REPORT examine such issues. Here is a short section from Part Five (my emphasis in bold added):

In saying "marijuana is responsible for less damage to individual and to society than alcohol or cigarettes," the Panel's uncertain language implies marijuana damages but less so than alcohol or tobacco. A glance at the Official Mortality Statistics (Parts One & Three) shows alcohol and tobacco literally kill hundreds of thousands of people every year; alcohol and tobacco strike down further multitudes with excruciating diseases, ruining careers, destroying families, causing suffering and grief where they truly need not be. Cannabis does none of these things. The Panel's majority advocated Relegalisation. In this THE REPORT concurs but criticises the Panel's insipid equivocal wording. The truth which the Panel could not bring themselves to articulate openly, is empirically established; it is one's duty to state it: cannabis is harmless, cannabis is safe, cannabis is benign.

With regard to socio-scientific analysis, it is incorrect and invidious to "compare" disparate cannabis to alcohol and tobacco. Certainly, it is proper to show the unlawful inequity in a 'law' which denies people this wholesome relaxant tonic herb while it allows the ravages to health of alcohol, tobacco, and innumerable other harmful dangerous substances which the family consumes daily (1).

If the control (i.e., standard of comparison) were honest and scientifically competent, cannabis bears comparison with other substances.... Comparison of harmless cannabis to harmful substances to draw the incorrect defamatory conclusion that cannabis is "less harmful" than they, is inane. Cannabis is due comparison to substances which give rise to similarly salutary indications, and the same Statistic of complete safety* as orange juice, mother's milk and bread (see Part One; and Judicial Enquiry Findings in Part Four). Then, and only then is the comparison fair; and, ipso facto, the extreme untruthfulness of the Prohibition is revealed.

[*Zero; 0 mortalities; cannabis does no harm to body organs or functions; cannabis has no Lethal Dose Rating (LDR) it being unable to induce fatality at any dose. See Law Judge Enquiry Findings of Fact.] 

The unfounded nature of the 'law' shows its illegality: persecution of citizens is the Fact, not 'punishment'. All cultivation, possession, trade and use are, de jure, legal. The fraudulent legislation and its unconscionable enforcement are criminal under both National and International Law. Citizens persecuted by this felonious Prohibition are due immediate Amnesty, and full and fair Restitution.

1 Ref. Judicial Review Findings; commonplace foods and beverages with great potential for harm to health; Part Four.
[QUOTE ENDS.]

Andrew,
If you genuinely want vindication, then firstly, you have to stop using vocabulary which condemns cannabis.

Secondly, you need to take the decision to educate firmly those who do use such incorrect language, to the error of their ways. The public and government panels, and your medical tribunal accusers, being replete with disinformation on this subject, are led to continue to believe in the disinformation, unless you arrange your script to gainsay the perjurious anti-cannabis propaganda.

4. VIDEO CLIP. (i) In the video clip, you start by including cannabis in the context of "drugs." You do not say that cannabis is not a 'drug'. You do not say cannabis cannot correctly be defined as a 'drug', nor as a 'soft-drug' (see defining characteristics below).

Cannabis is non-toxic and hence cannot "intoxicate." In your video, having introduced the subject of "drugs" and brought cannabis into it, you used the words toxicity and intoxication referring to alcohol, but you did NOT say 'intoxication', 'toxicity' and 'drug' are words which cannot truthfully, medically or semantically be applied to cannabis. 

(ii) There are those who say --- correctly --- that all drugs are harmful. So, to discuss harmless cannabis in any meaningful, truthful way, and use vocabulary which accurately reflects the disparateness between safe cannabis and those harmful toxic substances the drugs, it is essential to separate cannabis from drugs. It is correct to extricate cannabis from that vocabulary by which drugs are categorised; particularly including 'psychoactive' substances which cause brain dysfunctions and test-measurable decrements of motor functions, co-ordination, etc., none of which occur with cannabis use (see THE REPORT; Part One).

Nota Bene [QUOTE FROM PART ONE OF THE REPORT]:

"Objectivity and scruple deny absolutely the misapplication to cannabis of words such as narcotic, hallucinogen, psychoactive or psychotropic, for this jargon befits psyche-distorting substances, hallucinogens, narcotics and drugs, with their well-known and measurable mind dysfunctions."

(iii) 'GATEWAY' FALLACY. Moreover, there are people who are told to believe the 'stepping stone' or 'gateway theory': that one 'drug' leads to another; but the people who implant this damaging lie (Drummond et al) do not want people to know that, far from leading to drug use, non-addictive cannabis has proven clinical utility in the cessation of narcotic indulgence; alleviating withdrawal, etc. Empirical Findings of Fact: use of cannabis reduces, replaces and can entirely preclude the use of drugs.
(See THE REPORT, Parts One, Three & Four.) 

5. THE UNPRECEDENTED CBEE FORMULATION.

The remarks you make about how fuel-energy can be derived from cannabis are so wide of the mark as to be misinformation. Although you were provided with a DIAGRAM and the DEMOCRACY DEFINED website SYNOPSIS (description), it is obvious that you have not bothered to read "The Modern Uses of Cannabis."

It is wasteful and uneconomical to build plant and run facilities to produce ethanol (as proposed in 20 Billion Crop video) from the cellulose and wood of cannabis crops. This is because the alternative pyrolytically-produced CH3OH cannabis-methanol is production-cost-free (i.e., free) and self-processes for free by anaerobic combustion (wood distillation) into high octane fuel for power station electricity generation for all industrial and domestic requirements; and suited to land, sea and air transportation without pollution --- whilst achieving ZERO increase in atmospheric CO2.

Contrary to the comments in your current e-mail, if you now refer to the Statistiken Bundesregierung Deutschland, etc. (provided to you previously), you will realise that the greatest 'carbon impact' comes from replacing fossil 'fuels' with cannabis-methanol.

Also, regarding your current diversion, note that bio-technology using fungal and/or bacterial enzymes requires considerable investment, cost of plant (infrastructure), ongoing skilled supervision and labour, and also uses energy to make the fuel-energy, devaluing end products by increasing the cost of production.

Produced in accordance with the CANNABIS BIOMASS ENERGY EQUATION, cannabis-methanol is production-cost-free. Cannabis provides the cheapest fuel-energy known to mankind. (See The CBEE in Part Two of THE REPORT.)

Following Relegalisation, the large species cannabis sativa (not the relatively diminutive THC-free hybrids misnamed 'industrial' cannabis) will provide crops for ALL its various uses, including prolific protein-rich staple seed food (no relaxant in seed). This latter profitable food-crop renders production-cost-free the by-products, the fibre, wood-hurds, flowers and foliage, these being the resources to: personal relaxant, medication, paper, card, newsprint, textiles, Dresden Cotton®, modern furniture composites, lightweight building materials, Isochanvre®, all types of plastics, man-made fibres and cellulosic polymers, and virtually unlimited quantities of incomparably economical (cheap) FUEL-ENERGY. 

To sum up, considering you are taking a highly public stance on this subject, your "education" effort on cannabis leaves much to be desired.  

For your convenience of reference, the info below is included. Further to my e-mail of response to you of the 26th of July, I hope you find the following excerpts generally informative, and, in particular, helpful to your medical tribunal hearings.

REF. THESE EXCERPTS BELOW, WHICH CONTRADICT
THE INCORRECT OPINIONS VERBALLY INDICATED
in the Katelaris video extract from "Billion Dollar Crop."

THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204
Cannabis Is Not A Drug; Accurate Language.

Cannabis is a herb benign in effects and results to humans: in all the long history of cannabis use, of which the written record dates back approximately 5,000 years, cannabis has never been cause to a single fatality. Although people are revealed by post mortem (autopsy) examination to have cannabis in their system at the time of death, their deaths were induced by causes not associated with cannabis. Medical records and study of worldwide pertinent writings over the millennia show that at no time has any person died from having smoked or taken any amount of cannabis, ever.

Cannabis is NON-TOXIC: one hundred per cent of the scores of studies by research and university medical facilities show toxicity does not exist in cannabis. (U.C.L.A., Harvard, Temple, etc.) Cannabis at any dose or quantity is incapable of inducing fatality in humans and animals.

For details of its Safety, e.g., the Therapeutic Ratio (none), Lethal Dose Rating (zero; there is no lethal dose) see the section in Part Four of THE REPORT, entitled "The Judge's Ruling." Cannabis does not, and cannot, do harm to consumers' body organs or functions. A harmless substance cannot correctly, truthfully or legally, be included in Prohibition legislation controls based on criteria of harm, danger, abuse, or misuse, etc. Where cannabis is concerned, the U.K. Misuse of Drugs Act, the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, and all legislation and treaties of control or regulation, are misconstrued and inapplicable.

All the clinical Empirical Studies [see later sections] confirm cannabis contains no addictive properties in any part of the plant nor in its smoke: cannabis does not induce psychological or physical dependence. The medico-scientific aspect shows cannabis is not only wrongly defined as a "drug" in any meaningful (semantic) definition of the word, but also, by empirical reality, cannabis is wrongly proscribed (prohibited) as a "drug" (or other substance). 

Although dictionaries vary slightly in their definitions of "drug," (1) virtually all refer to, and rely for definition on, a drug's habit-forming, addictive properties. Webster's New World Dictionary, for example, defines "drug" as: "a narcotic, hallucinogen, especially one that is habit-forming." To recapitulate: The medico-scientific empirical research confirms cannabis contains no narcotic, no hallucinogenic and no habit-forming properties, in the plant itself nor in its smoke. Evident from the most fundamental and widely inferred meaning, by definition based on empirical fact, cannabis is not a drug.

Most unlike, and in contrast to tobacco, alcohol, tea, coffee, the caffeine-colas, and all legal or illegal 'recreational' substances, cannabis is both non-habit-forming and non-toxic. Cannabis is uniquely safe. The word "safe" in the context of cannabis use, by definition, means: "free of danger, risk or injury."

Referring to cannabis as a "drug" is misleading, and untruthful. In the context of evidence, where accuracy and veracity are paramount, to do so is both inept and unacceptable. The invalidity of linking cannabis with "drugs" is further demonstrated by the U.S. government's Bureau of Mortality Statistics: the table (see previous page) shows that cannabis by any meaningful definition is not a drug. Cannabis cannot correctly be categorised or referred to as a drug of any type.

To people whose financial interests are served by Prohibition (discussed later in THE REPORT) the incorrect use of the word "drug" where cannabis is concerned, is premeditated; a strategy of simple but effective disinformation, associating the harmless herb with addictive toxic drugs. The reality is that cannabis and those potentially pernicious substances, the drugs, are wholly unalike. It is necessary to establish veracious vocabulary: the word "drug" is wrong and inapplicable to cannabis.

The biochemistry of cannabis is as follows (2) : molecules of cannabis temporarily attach to compatible receptors on cells such as those situated on the outer surface of the brain, the meninges, this gently bringing about a feeling of well-being. When the cells' receptors are replete, increasing the amount (dose) of cannabis does not and cannot lead to progressive intensification of the mild sensation of well-being experienced. Regular users generally smoke decreasing quantities until finding their own level of sufficiency and no 'tolerance syndrome' occurs. [Tolerance syndrome is the term used to denote the body's physical acclimatisation to the ingestion of a drug resulting in larger quantities being required to experience the same subjectively desired effect. Users of the drug alcohol call this learning to "hold your liquor." Drug addicts reach tolerance levels to the degree of craving doses simply to maintain an ability to function.] Tolerance is a fundamental characteristic of a drug. Cannabis, not being a drug, does not possess this characteristic.

1 The word 'drug' derives from Old Dutch droog meaning dried herbs, as used in food, for healing and in the dyeing of textiles; viz: The Wealth of Nations, 1776, Adam Smith; Book One, Chapter One. There was no connotation of addiction.That meaning was transformed in the Twentieth Century, by the specious pseudo-philosophy of money-motivated Prohibitions.
2 See also: 'THC' Is Not 'Cannabis'.

Airways of the lungs are dilated by smoking cannabis; this ameliorates the pulmonary function of blood oxygenation, constituting a significant benefit to the functioning of the human brain and body, as oxygen is the natural 'food' of the brain and muscles. Thus is explained much of the subjectively perceived pleasant sensation. The effects of smoking cannabis are never harmful, always being beneficial. It helps people to feel well and good; there has never been anything wrong with that.

Cannabis reduces intra-ocular pressure (IOP) by approximately 30 per cent, with beneficial relaxation to the eyes noticed particularly by sufferers of high or increasing IOP (glaucoma) [Part Three]. The whites of the eyes can become reddened for a short time as cannabis tends to dilate vessels. This temporary effect occurs to a less noticeable degree than the bloodshot eyes associated with the use of alcohol, chopping onions, crying or a swim in a chlorinated pool. Physical tensions and symptoms of stress are alleviated, generally accompanied by slight dilation of blood vessels lowering blood pressure. These effects are measurably mild and, confirmed by Modern Medical Case Histories [Parts Three & Four], only ever do good to the human being (Judicial Enquiry Data, ref. Part Four).

Although it is sometimes asserted that skills, or using heavy machinery and driving a car would be adversely affected by cannabis use, this is the unscientific voice of prejudice speaking. This damaging fiction about cannabis is a widely promulgated, premeditated calumny, for official tests and studies have demonstrated that, with cannabis use, no deterioration of manual dexterity or mental adroitness occurs. The opposite is established: with the use of cannabis heightened awareness is reported and increase in skills is observed.

The deleterious progressive intensification-by-quantity which occurs with use of alcohol, tranquillisers and other toxic drugs (whose biological action differs from cannabis) is mendaciously asserted to occur with non-toxic cannabis too, in both official and other propaganda, despite the specific and complete exoneration of cannabis from all such allegations, by replicable, clinical tests. Given the brief to discover impairment if any, the Crancer Study from the Washington Department of Motor Vehicles, confirms cannabis has no deleterious effects on driving ability.

Clinically tested, cannabis is shown not to induce functional impairments. Rather the reverse is confirmed: improvements in the ability to concentrate and perform are demonstrated by recorded results. The tests of skills in simulated driving performance of the U.S. official Crancer Studies demonstrate that any quantity of cannabis, even huge amounts consumed by test subjects, is unable to cause the slightest impairment of brain function. Crancer finds:

"Simulated driving scores for subjects experiencing a normal social marijuana 'high' and the same subjects under control conditions are not significantly different. However, there are significantly more errors for alcohol intoxicated than for control subjects."

Moreover, increased quantity does not have deleterious results. To quote Crancer again, both regular and novice smokers smoking three times effective dose:

"showed either no change or negligible improvement in their scores."

Thus, 'acute' effects (i.e., current or short-term use) show no maltreatment, no abuse of the cannabis consumer.

It cannot be discerned by looking at, talking to or testing the abilities of a person that they have taken cannabis. Cannabis has no effect on brain mechanisms controlling consciousness, speech, co-ordination, etc.: a person functions normally. See official empirical research: 'The Effects of Marijuana on Human Beings,' by Professor A.T. Weil, M.D., Arizona College of Medicine and Professor N.E. Zinberg, M.D., Harvard.

Weil and Zinberg relate how, on occasion, some research subjects enjoying effects, thinking themselves "too stoned" to perform adequately, would ask to be excused the tests, which were nevertheless insisted upon. Then, on testing, subjects were surprised and pleased to find themselves able to perform as well as, or better than without marijuana. This finding proved to be replicable (1).

That users were "surprised" their tests' results confirmed no decrements derive from use of cannabis, indicates they had been prepossessed by false indoctrination.

Cannabis is not a narcotic, and does not induce tiredness, drowsiness, torpor or drugged sleep. Inducement of tiredness and drugged sleep is a function of toxic substances which are fatal at some dose. There is no Lethal Dose Rating for cannabis which is a non-toxic substance incapable of causing death in humans and animals at any dose. Nor does cannabis interfere with rest, for those who are tired or in need of sleep are able to sleep normally. Patients and cannabis users report enjoying sleep of the most restful sort with incremented invigoration and energy on awakening. Accurate language reflects that cannabis may be referred to as: a safe relaxant tonic.

Cannabis is not an hallucinogen. Those parts of the brain including the mind, the psyche, pertaining to consciousness, etc., are not deleteriously interfered with by cannabis. It is untruthful then to apply to cannabis terms which are generally used to describe the effects of drugs and substances which do adversely affect brain function. In this context, such terminology as 'psychoactive' and 'psychotropic' is inadmissible. These words describe substances which thoroughly change personality and behaviour, measurably impair brain function and/or induce psychical distortions and hallucinations. For example, psychoactive alcohol can cause violent and grievous changes of behaviour, destabilising normal social psychical restraints and inhibitions (ref. 'Harm and Danger in Perspective,' in Part Three). Psychotropic hallucinogen Lioresal and other prescription drugs cause hallucinations (ref. section on Martha Hirsch, in Administrative Law Judge F.L. Young's review, quoted verbatim in Part Four). Psychotropic/psychoactive lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) distorts perceptions, and so on. Even in small amounts, psychoactive/psychotropic drugs, such as alcohol, impair performance. Although with alcohol the user may feel invigorated and confident ("Dutch courage") when (clinically) tested the recorded results of mental abilities and physical co-ordination consistently show deterioration.

Objectivity and scruple deny absolutely the misapplication to cannabis of words such as narcotic, hallucinogen, psychoactive or psychotropic, for this jargon befits psyche-distorting substances, hallucinogens, narcotics and drugs, with their well-known and measurable mind dysfunctions. The empirical tests of actual use of cannabis herb clinically confirm (i.e., they are replicable) categorically, cannabis does not induce any adversely altered perceptions or impairments of brain function.

1 Also see 'Clinical and Psychological Effects of Marijuana in Man,' Science, vol. 162, Dec., 1968, pp. 1234-1242; & 'Cannabis: The First Controlled Experiment,' New Society, 16 Jan., 1969, pp. 85-86, by Professors Weil & Zinberg, et al.

The 'Medical Anthropological Study of Chronic Marijuana Use,' conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse, revealed that from high frequency, long duration use (subjects averaged over 16 years of such use) of cannabis of greater potency than is generally available elsewhere, there results:

"No impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual motor performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability, and cognitive style, and tests of memory."

Thus, the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health Study, taken together with the comprehensive empirical researches of the U.S.-Costa Rican Study (see EXORDIUM, page 3) confirm long-term cannabis smoking and dietary use also show no abuse, no maltreatment of the cannabis consumer.

LEXICOGRAPHICAL OBSERVATIONS.

The same respect for accuracy is needed in Semantics as in Arithmetic. It is easy to see why. The accounts' clerk who transfers a couple of digits from the credit balance shown on a statement of account, adding them instead onto his own statement, makes only a small alteration in the numeric representation of the facts. However, the results from such an activity may not be small. By a simple but unnoticed distortion of the truth he multiplies his own wealth an hundredfold, stealing from those whose trust is invested in him and for whom he may well be setting in train ruinous effects.

In casual conversation the word 'drug' has vague and loose meanings. In legislation or litigation, informal misuse of terms which inevitably convey misunderstandings and untruth, is not acceptable. Generalised, polysemous, semantically misconstrued and/or overtly incorrect definitions are dishonestly employed by Prohibitionists. Use of the word 'drug' in connexion with cannabis is malicious defamation which obscures the plain facts of the safe, harmless and benign nature of the herb. This semantic abuse veils the truth that cannabis is not a drug.

For example, as a definition "medical utility" cannot competently be applied to define a substance as a drug because Accessory Food Factors, vitamins, minerals, etc., which are not drugs, are nonetheless used in specific medical treatments. Bandages too have "use in medicine;" therefore, this attribute does not of itself define a substance as a drug.

Likewise, it is so inaccurate as to be nonsensical to nominate as a 'drug' "any substance which kills or inactivates germs." Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, chlorine, ammonia, numerous chemical herb-, pest- and germicides and even common rocksalt, all have this property yet they are not drugs. Nor are they ever alluded to as drugs.

In the same way, it is not correct to define drug as "any substance which affects body functions or organs" because food, water, and the very air we breathe, which are not drugs, all have this property.

Thus is exemplified the absolute necessity for authentic objectivity and uncompromised exactitude when entering the realms of analytical semasiology, in order that truth be conveyed in language. Cannabis is not a drug.

Because many grave syndromes can and do result from drugs, that is to say, from the use of addictive, toxic substances, the Prohibitionists' disinformation tactic is to associate cannabis with "drugs" to attempt to make their stories of 'harm' sound believable. If a person is duped into accepting about cannabis, the incorrect and defamatory initial supposition that it could be a "drug," i.e., an addictive substance with death-inducing potential like heroin, alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco, then all manner of completely wrong and thoroughly untruthful allegations strike a note to effect a sympathetic resonance in the non-specialist's mind.

This tactic to sow confusion is most evident in the deliberate misapplication to cannabis by some Prohibitionists of the wrong and nonsensical: "soft drug," a contradiction-in-terms.

The Prohibitionists' scheme relied upon people's fears and on keeping them ignorant of the truth. Yet, however 'plausible' allegations of 'harm' are made to sound, the plain fact is that cannabis shares in common with other harmless substances the same statistic of complete safety as orange juice, mother's milk and bread because it is neither toxic nor addictive and is not a drug at all. The Prohibitionists' false message is only credible to those people who read or hear only the mendacity which the Prohibitionist-controlled governments and media promulgate.

Where cannabis is concerned, the U.S. Controlled Subtances Act, the U.K. Misuse of Drugs Act, and all legislative and regulatory controls worldwide are abrogated by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the official medico-scientific clinical studies into the actual smoking and consumption of cannabis, conducted by world-respected U.S. academic and research institutions.

The unprecedented (new) CANNABIS BIOMASS ENERGY EQUATION (CBEE; ref. Part Two of THE REPORT) proves the oil-gasoline type fuel Cannabis-Methanol is the cheapest fuel-energy known to man. The CBEE establishes cannabis as globally capable of providing, pollution-free, production-cost-free (i.e., free); and duty-free, fuel. The CBEE also shows (with instructions and diagrams) how Cannabis-Methanol can easily be made at home for free, achieving the Universal Re-Democratisation of Fuel-Energy Production (URFEP).

Information on The CBEE combines with the Findings of Fact established by the professorial Empirical Studies, viz. the published clinical truths about the health-promoting qualities and the absolute harmlessness of cannabis. Education, truth and understanding expose the 'law' and all controls, i.e. Prohibition, to have been, and to be, a façade, the false front to a destructive and degenerate money-motive.

Semantics provides the parameters of meaning, a linguistic matrix from which all philosophy, wisdom and knowledge may flow. Semantics also enables judgements of rationality and discernment to be made between subtle truths, plain facts and nonsense. Obviously, when the precise significations of words are known to all parties in reciprocal communication misunderstandings are reduced. More than this however, as the knowledge and sense imparted in language mould the way individuals and multitudes think, they result in conclusions drawn and give direction to subsequent action. Alcohol is a case in point.

Many responsible people use alcohol and are generally able to control their consumption of it to moderate quantities. It is fair to say that all adults use alcohol if only from time to time, apart from members of particular religions or sects and some few abstemious individuals amounting to a small percentage of the population. Few social gatherings are without alcohol. Weddings, formal and informal receptions, banquets, parties, reunions and most occasions would be deemed inadequately provided for, without it. The use of alcohol varies greatly from seldom to frequent. Alcohol is taken at meals and when people are relaxing from work or off-duty in a variety of settings, such as a whisky and soda with a good book by the fireside, the regular bottle of wine with lunch, to a flagon of ale after a strenuous bout of sport.

Yet, to drink alcohol is "to take drugs."

Understanding of the meaning attached to the word 'drug' and an appraisal of the clinically-defined action of alcohol upon the workings of the human mind, brain and body convey the inescapable fact that alcohol, as surely as heroin or crack-cocaine, is a drug. These substances fulfil definition of the word 'drug' by sharing in common the characteristics of the (use of) drugs, such as: tolerance syndrome(1) dependence(2) toxicity(3) mortality(4) 'withdrawal' symptoms(5) abstinence syndrome(6) and especially, addiction(7). 

This is not to say that all people who use alcohol are drug addicts but long-term indulgence, frequent or heavy use, inevitably induce the adverse results in humans in varying degrees.

The phenomena associated with the use of substances establish whereby the term 'drug' becomes applicable. Most politicians and journalists and by far the larger part of the population are wont semantically to confuse the issue by using the misleading and inaccurate vernacular of popular phraseology to speak of "drink and drugs," as if in some way alcohol were not really a drug. The other drugs, opiates, etc., can also be taken orally, like 'drink': does this make them less a drug ? When consumed in or as liquid, is heroin then "drink" as opposed to "drugs" ? The answer, of course, is in the negative. Likewise, alcohol is nonetheless a drug and its use is drug-taking, whether 'polite' society faces this fact truthfully or not.

What is more, shown by the NIDA statistics quoted later (1), alcohol use burdens society on the huge scale with strife, disease, grave accidents, crime, absenteeism, lost productivity, early death and the euphemistically-termed "alcoholism" that is drug-addiction in the worst degree by another name. By contrast, the excellent uses of cannabis as Preventive Measure to replace use of, and avoid, alcohol, and to help in the cure of alcohol addiction, are detailed in clinical studies (2).

Comparison reveals that although cannabis has medical utility and health-giving attributes, as do other non-drugs and Accessory Food Factors such as vitamin-C in treatment of the disease scurvy, the parameters of definition, the meaning of the word 'drug' including especially a drug's intrinsic chemically-addictive properties, exclude non-addictive cannabis from such categorisation.

Bearing in mind that cannabis induces none of the damaging phenomena associated with drug use, as mentioned, addiction, tolerance, toxicity, mortality, withdrawal, dependence and abstinence, from an objective standpoint, to equate unique cannabis with "drugs" is scientifically preposterous, and legally malicious.

1 Ref. 'Harm and Danger in Perspective'.                          2 Ref. Part Three.

Before Prohibition enactment, a loose misuse of the term 'drug' by doctors and lay-people produced little or no apparent ill-effect. Nowadays, however, the situation requires complete accuracy and absolute veracity, as words and semantics mould people's thoughts subsequently to affect their decisions and direct their actions. 

Currently, to use the term 'drug' to describe cannabis is not simply untruthful, but worse, it is the premeditated adoption of an unconscionable Prohibitionist tactic of semantic abuse. This devious ploy deliberately associates mild, benign cannabis with potentially dangerous, addictive substances, drugs-of which alcohol is one such-to make cannabis appear to be something harmful, which the official empirical researches confirm it is not.

The disparateness of harmless cannabis from toxic drugs is empirically established Fact. Justice compels that the completeness of the disparity be reflected in truthful semantics and complete Relegalisation in law.

Controls of cultivation, trade, possession and use purport to be by legislation based on criteria of 'harm' and 'danger', which do not, and cannot, apply to safe cannabis. Not only is cannabis without harm but also, cannabis promotes good health; ref. Parts Three & Four. Modern Medical Case Histories and the Empirical Studies conducted by teams of eminent clinical physicians, toxicologists, pharmacologists, psychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, etc., re-establish cannabis as a profoundly benign Personal Relaxant with unique effective preventive and curative therapeutic applications; and as the benevolent alternative to toxic pathogens of addiction, tobacco and alcohol.

CANNABIS IS NOT 'INTOXICANT'.

Whilst considering use of language in order that truth be conveyed, it is not only technically incorrect to apply words such as "intoxicant" and "inebriant" to cannabis, but to do so is thoroughly misleading, constituting perjury.

Intoxication and toxicity, self-evidently, are not unrelated words: the word 'toxic' derives from toxikon, Greek for arrow-poison. Toxicology is the Science of Poisons. As mentioned in Part One, it is empirically established that there is no toxic amount for cannabis. Put in everyday language, this means cannabis taken in any quantity is non-poisonous (1).

Prohibitionist tactics of a simple but effective mendacity are those which, by their abuse and perversion of the use of words and language, intentionally convey to the non-specialist a false belief in 'harm' where none exists. To use language which implies 'toxicity' in connexion with cannabis, is one of these misrepresentations. To describe a substance as "toxic" or "poisonous" requires that substance, at some level or dose, to be capable of inducing death. Veracity denies absolutely the loose misuse of language or jargon by which people are led into false 'beliefs'. One sees cannabis referred to as one of the "least toxic of the therapeutic substances," a phrase containing a wholly incorrect imputation. To adopt the language is to endorse the lie.

1 Ref. Judicial Enquiry Findings of Fact on Safety; Part Four.

The effect a substance has cannot be described as "toxic" or having "toxicity" at all, if mortality categorically cannot result from ingestion of the substance from which the effect derives.

In the human or animal context, to attempt to define cannabis as having "toxicity," or as of "non-zero toxicity" (DEA), is to state a falsehood, for, however limited the likelihood of 'damage' to the ingestor which may or may not be intended by such expressions, "toxic" means destructive of health with the potential for fatality, which contradicts the empirical reality and fact: cannabis cannot induce fatality in humans. Cannabis is a non-toxic substance. For example, to quote from DEA Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young's review of the cannabis data:

"Researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death," (1) and: "Marijuana cannot induce a lethal response." (2)

Thus, the aforesaid "non-zero" or "least toxic" are contrary to the established fact. In reference to medicine, health, the pharmacopoeia, the lexicon and law, the uncompromising demands of veracity require that natural herb cannabis be only and always referred to as: non-toxic.

Seen in Part One, cannabis produces no interference in psychological attributes of character and personality. This is most unlike alcohol's toxic effects and results (3). Alcohol literally poisons people, and, as it does so, it affects their health, behaviour and judgement. Language such as "intoxication" and "inebriation" are used to describe alcohol-effects, alcohol-associated bad behaviour and crime (4). Alcohol can be referred to as "inebriating" and "intoxicating" with the meaning that it can excite to behaviour beyond self-control, grievously de-stabilising normal social inhibitions and restraints on personal behaviour. Tobacco and alcohol can be described as "intoxicants" because, toxicologically-speaking, they both are literally poisoning agents which induce disease and death. Tobacco, heroin, caffeine, alcohol, and other legal and illegal recreational substances, are correctly referred to as toxic, and as intoxicant, rendering users intoxicated, but not so cannabis.

Benign cannabis is differentiated by its intrinsically safe characteristics: it merits vocabulary which truthfully reflects and accurately signifies this fundamental disparity from drugs. Inexorable empirically-established clinical facts conduce to terminology and definition (5) such as: "safe, recreational substance" or "benign personal relaxant."

1 & 2 DEA Admin. Law Judge Rulings: Findings of Fact; Accepted Safety, Paragraphs 7 & 9: ref. Part Four.
Also ref. 'THC' Is Not 'Cannabis', in Part One; and, Cannabis Is Sui Generis, in this Part.
3 Ref. alcohol-related statistics (NIDA) in: Harm and Danger in Perspective; Part Three.
4 Nota Bene: Findings of New York Academy of Medicine: "use of marijuana does not predispose to any crime, even that of using drugs." See NYAM Report, pp. 12-17. Also ref. Parts Five & Six.
5 For a more detailed definition of cannabis, ref. Definition; Part Four.

'THC' IS NOT 'CANNABIS'.

To equate with cannabis, the natural plant, the findings of research into a laboratory synthesised or isolated, concentrated chemical compound, such as THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), is erroneous, technically impertinent and profoundly misleading. Properties of compounds are unique, and are not a sum of the properties of the individual elements and compounds from which they are made.

In the Science of Chemistry, the properties of substances, elemental and compound, are seen to alter, and are affected by interaction and combination. Simply, by the binding of atoms and molecules, one 'thing' can and does become quite another. Completeness of the difference of individual substances from the product of their combination, is exemplified by the elements, explosive when separated, hydrogen and oxygen, which combined give the safe vital liquid water.

Hydrogen compounded into water is safe to consume, but hydrogen extracted from water boils at room temperature and is fatal to humans if consumed.

Similarly, within cannabis, THC ceases to be only THC, as the THC is compounded into the disparate single entity that is the safe herb. (Like hydrogen, oxygen and water), THC, and all isolated cannabinoid compounds, and the cannabis herb, are disparates. (Definition. Disparates: different things or species; things too unalike to be compared.)

The carbon from which a human being is in part constructed, is different from the complete being: individual cannabinoids and complete herbal cannabis are different, in the same way. THC in combination with other elements and compounds within the natural plant is 'different' from THC isolated and concentrated, in the same sense that carbon combined with other elements, makes of itself wholly alternative substances with different effects or properties; viz: in addition to human bodies, the bubbles in a 'fizzy' drink, the stem of a cabbage, and diamonds, are all carbon-based.

A cannabinoid is a substance unique to cannabis by which it is differentiated from other plants. If a compound also occurs in other plants (such as cocoa-chocolate) then it is not a cannabinoid. Names of the better-known cannabinoids are cannabidiol, cannabinol, and tetrahydrocannabivarin. There are over sixty other known cannabinoid compounds. In addition to unique characteristics, plants have a wide variety of vegetative matter in common. Cannabis totals over 1000 different known substances, which all combine to make but one unique substance that is the cannabis herb, which has evolved in nature a benign and health-giving character of inestimable value to the health and well-being of humans....when they can obtain it.... (Ref. information in following Parts.)

Pharmaceutical concentrates of THC are legally available by prescription. If herbal cannabis were the same it would not be legally possible to maintain the present Prohibition Schedules and Classifications. The law recognises the obvious differences which exist between THC and the natural herb.

It is 'convenient language' to refer to cannabis as being "THC-rich" or "THC-free," to denote the quantity of chemical concentrate of THC which can be isolated by laboratory chemical processes out of a particular strain or batch of plants, but, scientifically-speaking, THC cannot even be said to be present in the herb, because, when THC is in combination with the other compounds, as it is within the herb, it ceases to be THC: nature makes it into an other single substance, that is, the herb. And when it is no longer the compound THC, it does not have the characteristics of THC.

The total difference between cannabis and THC is demonstrated by the fact that on its own, THC is a toxic substance causing negative, potentially fatal reactions in laboratory animals such as mice (1). This is utterly different from herbal cannabis which is non-toxic and is incapable of causing fatality in humans and animals at any dose (2).

The completeness of the difference between THC and the cannabis plant is also well demonstrated by the fact that cannabis, the natural herb, so efficacious in prevention of glaucoma blindness, relaxes intra-ocular pressure (IOP) by approximately 30 per cent (3). After THC is extracted from it, the remaining herb lowers IOP by approximately 10 per cent (4); but THC, after approximately seven days' use during which fluctuating marginal effects are recorded, THC does not reduce IOP at all (5).

Patients' Medical Case Histories record the discomforts to humans caused by THC (6). No such unfavourable response occurs in the same patients when the herb is smoked, taken instead of THC (7). Whereas smoked cannabis is recorded as effective in treatments and as being health-promoting, the unpleasant characteristics of THC and its failures as medication (8), give reasons enough to avoid the pharmaceutical product.

Shown earlier, the official empirical clinical tests confirm (i.e., they are replicable) that smoking of natural herb cannabis produces no effect on, or, marginal improvements to: mental concentration; abilities and co-ordinative skills; use of machinery; driving a car; tests of memory (short and long-term); concept formation and mental adroitness. By contrast, doses of disparate-substance pharmaceutical-THC cause impairments to test subjects' performance, by nausea, unpleasant mental effects and headache (ref. Parts Three & Four).

Confirming the medical uses of cannabis throughout history, time and again, modern uses of cannabis in its raw herbal form prove to be therapeutically effective, without any harmful effect. However, the naturally produced plant is not patentable. In 1976, under President Gerald Ford's administration, in response to lobbying by drug firms, American university and independent research into use of natural cannabis for medical potentials was Prohibited.

The ban exempted drug companies, which were permitted to research cannabis to synthesise, and evolve uses of, THC, in patentable ways. This Prohibition was intended to provide Owners with monopoly: the method by which populations suffer (ref. Parts Two to Six inclusive) while all the money from permitted trading accrues into the hands of a very few preferred people and the state. Nabilone, Marinol, etc., the tablet and capsule attempts to gain a patented, profitable windfall, are a well-known failure. These troches contain lab-synthesised or extracted THC, refined to 90%+ concentrates.

Laboratory-processed THC products have been trial-tested since the 1940's. Contrary to the publicised claims of those with vested interests, far from containing or embodying the "active ingredients" of cannabis, THC is useless when compared to the herb itself. Not only is THC ineffective, but patients who respond well to smoked cannabis, experience adverse reactions to THC (9). Indeed, studies into these artificial products, i.e., concentrates/THC, including sections of LaGuardia research, record diametrically opposed results from those clinical studies into the smoking of natural cannabis. For example, doses of lab-THC can cause nausea and headache, two of the many adverse conditions for which the resinous herb in its natural form is renowned as cure.

1 & 2 See: Medical Data, U.S. DEA, Administrative Law Judicial investigations.
3, 4 & 5 Ibid.; also: Hepler & Frank, UCLA Coll. of Med. Ref. sections on glaucoma, & Elvy Musikka, in Part Three.
6, 7, 8 & 9 See: Medical Data, U.S. DEA, Admin. Law Judicial investigations; ref. Part Four.

Since all research into the use of natural cannabis was made illegal (1976 in the U.S. and earlier elsewhere) studies have proliferated into THC. Prohibitionist individuals and organisations, representatives of the drug companies' financial interests, promulgate untruth that "hundreds" and even "thousands" of medical studies which actually have only investigated THC were made "on cannabis."

In mendacity intended to mislead, the adverse reactions of patients and test-subjects nauseated and otherwise debilitated by THC, are misquoted as 'indications' for...."cannabis." Government 'Advisers', and others, dupe the trusting public with this disinformation, which is disseminated everywhere as "new findings," by financed Prohibitionist activists, in books, leaflets, and all media. Shown herein, the Empirical Studies explicitly exonerate cannabis from all allegations of 'harm' or 'impairment'. But frightening fictions are implanted into the minds of those of the population who do not read the published empirical researches, and who instead rely on the owned and controlled media and the government for their (mis-) information.

The failure of THC to have reliable medical uses is also maliciously misattributed as being from "cannabis," which is deceitfully defamed as "medically unpromising." The "flop" of THC is but one of many of the drug companies' futile efforts to make artificial substitutes for the broad range of health applications for which natural cannabis herb has always been, and remains, the only safe and efficacious option (1).

Therapeutically-successful herbal cannabis (2) exposes the failures of the modern prescribed 'medicines', which yearly acquire trillions of undeserved dollars, pounds, Euros and yen for the pharmaceutical trade in drugs. Relegalised, cannabis will replace many of the lucrative addictive toxic pharmaceutical patent drugs, to the great health benefit of the population (3). Ergo, despite the failure of THC, the Prohibitionist remains intensely driven to prevent cannabis from being Relegalised.

THC-impairments are malevolently ascribed to "cannabis" as "new findings," by those who represent the financial interests of governments, and state or private companies, whose revenues and profits depend on keeping cannabis Prohibited (4). Motive for this behaviour should be noted: self-advancement and gain are observed to accrue to professionals who support Prohibition by spreading disinformation.

Methodologically, it is incorrect to mix in extraneous THC findings, or irrelevant data from disparate substances, and then make false claims relating these to "cannabis." Findings on lab-THC are admissible only as relevant to that substance, lab-THC itself. Such findings cannot truthfully be "extrapolated" as "applicable" to "cannabis." When a qualified expert ascribes THC findings to "cannabis," this is a premeditated act of perjury. Yet, to dupe people and prop up Prohibition, government-appointed 'advisers', drug czars, state employees and others constantly lie, by asserting 'harm' or 'toxicity' where there is none in the natural plant (5).

The gentle effective healing herb enjoys the highest of recommendation from those disinterested people, lay and specialist, whose interests and sympathies reside in common with those who hold the good health of the general populace above the avarice of the malign oligarch.

NOTE: Cannabis resin is comprised of hundreds of compounds. The resin exuded on flowertops is sometimes erroneously referred to as "THC". THC is a laboratory-isolated single chemical compound which does not occur in isolation naturally.
1 Ref. Part Three; & ref. U.S. Judicial Review Findings, quoted in Part Four.
2 & 3 Cannabis as Effective Medication in Patients' Medical Case Histories; ref. Parts Three & Four.
4 & 5 Ref. exposition on ULTERIOR MOTIVE; Parts Two to Seven.
[END QUOTE from THE REPORT, Cannabis: The Facts, Human Rights and The Law ISBN 9781902848204.]

Andrew,
THE REPORT is in print and order info is given below. Also, it should be available for free at your local library. Not to produce THE REPORT in your favour would be against your interests and those of the multitudes of penalised innocent people. We wish you the best of luck at your hearing.

Yours sincerely,
Astra d'Oudney, CEO.
DEMOCRACY DEFINED.
~

Kenn d'Oudney is author of books and essays including the following:
TRIAL BY JURY: ITS HISTORY, TRUE PURPOSE AND MODERN RELEVANCE ISBN 9781902848723, with endorsements and edited section authored by U.S. lawyer Lysander Spooner;
http://www.democracydefined.org/2trialbyjury.htm 

SRC Publishing Ltd., London, world distribution by LULU of North Carolina.

THE CONSTITUTION TREATISE: Why the d'Estaing ('European') Constitution-Treaty Is the Antithesis of Democracy ISBN 9781902848747, see website for endorsements by U.S. & U.K. cognoscenti;
http://www.democracydefined.org/5constitution.htm 

SRC Publishing Ltd., London.

THE REPORT, CANNABIS: THE FACTS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW 9781902848204, co-authored by Joanna d'Oudney; Foreword by a Nobel laureate former Official Adviser to the U.S. government; endorsed by a Professor of Physiology Fellow of the Royal Society, academics, doctors (of a variety of disciplines) and judges (U.S. & U.K.); 260 large-size pages;
http://www.democracydefined.org/1report.htm
THE REPORT collates the medico-scientific Findings of Fact of the empirical clinical studies into non-toxic, non-addictive natural herb cannabis (differentiated from laboratory toxic product THC). The official investigations exonerate cannabis from all allegations of 'harm' and 'impairment' (including tests on simulated driving); and exempt cannabis from all legislative criteria of control ('prohibition'). Efficacious in over 100 medical conditions (viz. Official Pharmacopoeias) with potential to replace numerous lucrative, but ineffective debilitating addictive toxic pharmaceuticals, rendering significant financial government-corporate revenue and profit motive (trillions) behind prohibition. THE REPORT also contains the unprecedented Cannabis Biomass Energy Equation (CBEE) which further exposes massive ulterior motive behind prohibition. The CBEE proves the clean-combusting cannabis-product CH3OH is the cheap non-polluting renewable world replacement for fossils and uranium.
Six Parts (chapters) include expert documentary, legal, academic, scientific, medical, economic, social, criminological, philosophical evidence, and that which is based on grounds of equity, vindicating all cultivation, trade, possession and use and which exposes perjury and venality in prohibition legislation. Part Seven, entitled RESTORATION: JUSTICE AND THE CONSTITUTION, exposes corruption, ineptitude and injustice in the justice process; and examines Law: natural law, supreme legem terræ Constitutional common law, treaties, statutes; quotes presidents, judges, lawyers and chief justices.
"To cause crime to occur is to be accountable for the crime, morally and legally. To consent to any measure is to share responsibility for its results." See Part Six of THE REPORT, PROHIBITION: THE PROGENITOR OF CRIME. Legalised, cannabis grows anywhere: the benign herb's foliage and flowers come free or at an insignificant price, but yielding no revenues to government and no profits to corporations. However, prohibition creates the Black Market: the Economic Effects of Prohibition (scarcity + enforcement, etc.) augment "street" value by 3000% plus, making all Black Market associated crime inevitable. The political commodities' prohibition, i.e., War on Drugs, engenders (causes) not less than 75 - 80 percent of all crimes (official statistics) throughout the West. 
"You have done a splendid job of producing a comprehensive summary of the evidence documenting that the prohibition of the production, sale and use of cannabis is utterly unjustified and produces many harmful effects. Any impartial person reading your REPORT will almost certainly end up favouring the re-legalisation of cannabis."
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR MILTON FRIEDMAN, former Economics' Adviser to U.S. government; Author, video and TV series writer and presenter; Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago.
"You represent a worthy part of the fight in many countries for the logical and beneficial use of cannabis. I thank you for that."
PROFESSOR PATRICK D. WALL, Author; Professor of Physiology, UMDS St. Thomas's (Teaching) Hospital, London; Fellow of the Royal Society; DM, FRCP.
SRC Publishing Ltd., London, world distribution by LULU of North Carolina.

GLOBAL WARMING OR NOT -- THE CBEE SOLUTION: CHEAP, NON-POLLUTING, RENEWABLE, TOTAL WORLD REPLACEMENT FOR FOSSILS AND URANIUM ISBN 9781902848068,
endorsed by Economics' Nobel Prize Winner Professor Milton Friedman, former official Adviser to the U.S. government; and the official Adviser to U.K. government on Environment; and academics and doctors of a variety of disciplines;
doubt the sincerity or knowledge of any who speak or write about the environment and fuel-energy without their giving exposition to the demonstrated facts of The CBEE Formulation;
http://www.democracydefined.org/3globalwarming.htm
SRC Publishing Ltd., London.

MAGNA CARTA, THE GREAT CHARTER CONSTITUTION; freely downloadable information about the true pan-European and pan-Occidental Constitution;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

WE THE PEOPLE AND THE MATTER OF WORDS; freely downloadable, indispensable information for the creation and sustainment of legitimate government and society;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

DEMOCRACY DEFINED: ON THE ETYMOLOGY, HISTORY AND SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORD DEMOCRACY; the Sciences of Etymology, Semantics, Semasiology, and Philology determine whether your country is a definitive democracy or your government is a despotism;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign.htm#democracy

9-11 TRUTH LINKS COMPENDIUM; exposition with select video analysis & lectures; contributions by professors, architects, scientists, Federal Aviation Authority experts, former CIA, FBI, military and government officals; freely download this Compendium which serves as an introduction to the subject, and as a source of additional references for those already familiar with the 9/11 Truth Movement;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm

THE VALUE OR OTHERWISE OF LAW DICTIONARIES; part of the contents of a forthcoming book to be published by SRC Publishing. It is nevertheless, for the time being anyway, downloadable for free;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm 

ON REFERENDA AND MAJORITY RULE; part of the contents of a forthcoming book downloadable for free;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm 

RADIOACTIVITY FROM CROPS FED WITH PHOSPHATE 'FERTILISER' IS THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF CANCER; some Findings of Fact downloadable for free, extracted from THE REPORT ISBN 9781902848204 (referred to above);

http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedmaterial.htm 

THE BURIED PRIMORDIAL ATMOSPHERE; empirical facts demonstrated and atmospheric carbon dioxide infra-red science explained; why and how the global warming 'sceptics' are deceiving the public; their motive and discrepancies revealed; on the governmental financial subterfuge of carbon and eco 'taxes'; and how the proven CBEE Formulation makes available the pollution-free, renewable, cheap replacement for fossils and uranium, as endorsed by Economics' Nobel laureate, U.K. government Adviser on Environment, technical & environment experts, and academics;
http://www.democracydefined.org/3globalwarming.htm

CHIEF JUSTICE VAUGHAN'S RULING; on perhaps the most famous trial in history; Juror's Rights and Duty and the Old Bailey Commemorative Plaque;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign2.htm#intervention

WHY THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANNOT DEFEND YOU; consider some of the breaches of common law and Constitution to which modern government resorts in order to enforce its inequitable and money-motivated statutes;
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign4.htm#lawyers

Further reading on the website:
http://www.democracydefined.org/
The Home Page of The not-for-profit Educational Campaign for RESTORATION and
UNIVERSAL ADOPTION of CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW TRIAL BY JURY. 
The Democracy Defined Campaign Philosophy is endorsed by academics, attorneys,
doctors (of jurisprudence, medicine, homeopathy, philosophy, etc.) and judges ( U.S . & U.K.). 
Join the Campaign ! Download and distribute free posters and educational pamphlets. Membership gratis.