• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

DEA banning CBD?

Migrated topic.
Is it not more effective to make everything illegal by definition in one go?

Lawyers never mind a case, it's just a lot of money they need to balls-of-steel for you, as Santo Daime did, they spend many years of prosecuting and freights of money to win their particular case. SD was organized and could collect $ among their large community.

Who represents CBD? Kratom? If it is plentiful us, then organization is what it needs.
 
Cognitive Heart said:
A complete disregard for our species, cannabis and the planet. :thumb_dow

Exactly CognitiveHeart! It's sickening. :x

Is it not more effective to make everything illegal by definition in one go?

Lawyers never mind a case, it's just a lot of money they need to balls-of-steel for you, as Santo Daime did, they spend many years of prosecuting and freights of money to win their particular case. SD was organized and could collect $ among their large community.

Who represents CBD? Kratom? If it is plentiful us, then organization is what it needs.

This is what they're actually doing. Here's the wording of the new rule:
Via the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 240, published Wednesday, December 14, 2016, “Rules and Regulations”:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1308

[Docket No. DEA–342]

RIN 1117–AB33

Establishment of a New Drug Code for Marihuana Extract

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

PART 1308 — SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES



The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.



Section 1308.11 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(58) to read as
follows: § 1308.11 Schedule I.

(d)

(58) Marihuana Extract—(7350)

Meaning an extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis, other than the separated resin (whether crude or purified) obtained from the plant.

You can see from that wording that they want to group all cannabinoids under Schedule 1.

There are actually established companies selling CBD oil and I'm sure these will fight back hard if the DEA starts taking action based on the new rule.
 
CBD has an interesting pharmacological profile...

Little to no psychoactivity...

Then you read into what they are actually trying to do, and realize, it's much worse than specifying just CBD, all cannabinoids were going to be placed in schedule one, even CBD.

Does this affect legal cannabis states? Somehow I doubt it...

Cannabis needs federal legalization, and this move by the DEA would be taking "two steps back"

-eg
 
entheogenic-gnosis said:
CBD has an interesting pharmacological profile...

Little to no psychoactivity...

Then you read into what they are actually trying to do, and realize, it's much worse than specifying just CBD, all cannabinoids were going to be placed in schedule one, even CBD.

Does this affect legal cannabis states? Somehow I doubt it...

Cannabis needs federal legalization, and this move by the DEA would be taking "two steps back"

-eg

Yeah the fact that they're trying to group all cannabinoids under Schedule 1, even non-psychoactive ones that are known to have many medical benefits is patently insane. Then again, we all know government drug policy is insane.

I also don't think this new ruling will affect legal cannabis states. The federal government is already catching a lot of flak for interfering with legal cannabis states.

Yeah federal legalisation needs to happen. When I look at this whole situation, I'm actually optimistic. Legalisation will happen. The people are behind it, science is behind it(all the studies MAPS is doing around the world) so it's really inevitable. Governments are fighting it, the pharmaceutical industry is fighting it, but I think that all that resistance will eventually fall away.

Anyway, that's just my personal opinion:grin:
 
Legal, illegal, doesn't make much of a difference IMO.

Cannabis is such a common plant to come across by that even in a shit place where nobody has any sort of drugs, jobs or money someone always has some weed.

It is rarely laced and 99% of the times you know what you're getting. Doesn't matter if it's sativa, indica, hybrid, landrace or some crazy new genetic mix they have going on all of them contain THC and CBD.

Even if you don't get a fancy pharmaceutical grade oil, or a capsule containing purified cannabanoids why does it matter?

It's easy to come across by, as accessible as beer, easy to grow, high yield and not all parts of the plant will get you high if you're not up to it and you still get the medicinal effects.

You like to get high too? Well, you can do that too and get your medicinal benefits.

As history has already shown us... Banning something will not prevent people from manufacturing it, selling, buying or "keep the streets clean". Who wants it and/or needs it will find a way to get it.

If cannabis was legal to begin with probably nobody would bother to make such a thing as CBD oil, instead shops would sell hashish, hemp leaf tea (with CBD of course), maybe even some bud much like they do with other herbal products.
 
AwesomeUsername said:
Legal, illegal, doesn't make much of a difference IMO.

Cannabis is such a common plant to come across by that even in a shit place where nobody has any sort of drugs, jobs or money someone always has some weed.

It is rarely laced and 99% of the times you know what you're getting. Doesn't matter if it's sativa, indica, hybrid, landrace or some crazy new genetic mix they have going on all of them contain THC and CBD.

Even if you don't get a fancy pharmaceutical grade oil, or a capsule containing purified cannabanoids why does it matter?

It's easy to come across by, as accessible as beer, easy to grow, high yield and not all parts of the plant will get you high if you're not up to it and you still get the medicinal effects.

You like to get high too? Well, you can do that too and get your medicinal benefits.

As history has already shown us... Banning something will not prevent people from manufacturing it, selling, buying or "keep the streets clean". Who wants it and/or needs it will find a way to get it.

If cannabis was legal to begin with probably nobody would bother to make such a thing as CBD oil, instead shops would sell hashish, hemp leaf tea (with CBD of course), maybe even some bud much like they do with other herbal products.

This is all true AwesomeUsername, however the principle is the real issue here. We know that prohibition doesn't work, and not just that, it actually causes more harm. This is clearly evident to anyone who looks at the War on Drugs and what it's doing to people. The fact that the DEA is still pushing this prohibition agenda in the face of all this is what really gets me.

AwesomeUsername, you're completely right in saying that banning substances does not prevent or reduce drug use, in fact, the opposite is the case. However, criminalisation does prevent people from using substances that could actually benefit them. There are people who won't use a drug, even if that drug could help them, just because that drug is illegal. This seems patently ridiculous to me, that someone would deprive themselves of potential benefits just because the government says it's illegal. But that's just the anarchist in me speaking lol. :d
 
JustAnotherHuman said:
entheogenic-gnosis said:
CBD has an interesting pharmacological profile...

Little to no psychoactivity...

Then you read into what they are actually trying to do, and realize, it's much worse than specifying just CBD, all cannabinoids were going to be placed in schedule one, even CBD.

Does this affect legal cannabis states? Somehow I doubt it...

Cannabis needs federal legalization, and this move by the DEA would be taking "two steps back"

-eg

Yeah the fact that they're trying to group all cannabinoids under Schedule 1, even non-psychoactive ones that are known to have many medical benefits is patently insane. Then again, we all know government drug policy is insane.

I also don't think this new ruling will affect legal cannabis states. The federal government is already catching a lot of flak for interfering with legal cannabis states.

Yeah federal legalisation needs to happen. When I look at this whole situation, I'm actually optimistic. Legalisation will happen. The people are behind it, science is behind it(all the studies MAPS is doing around the world) so it's really inevitable. Governments are fighting it, the pharmaceutical industry is fighting it, but I think that all that resistance will eventually fall away.

Anyway, that's just my personal opinion:grin:

I have a really long, and probably boring explanation as to why governments are so hesitant to relieve certain compounds of their contraband status....post #49 of THIS thread covers it...

Though I agree, there is pushback from many places, for many reasons, specially pharmaceutical companies.

I'm somewhat worried about the future of cannabis...

Sen. Jeff Sessions: 'Good people don't smoke marijuana' Play Video1:12

In a Senate drug hearing in April 2016, Sessions was vocal in opposition of marijuana legalization. (U.S. Senate Drug Caucus)
President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be attorney general of the United States, The Washington Post and other news outlets reported Friday. Sessions is a vocal opponent of marijuana legalization whose elevation to attorney general could deal a blow to state-level marijuana legalization efforts across the country.

At a Senate drug hearing in April, Sessions said that “we need grown-ups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it’s in fact a very real danger.” He voiced concern over statistics showing more drivers were testing positive for THC, the active component in marijuana, in certain states.

Sessions further argued that a lack of leadership from President Obama had been one of the drivers of the trend toward marijuana legalization in recent years. “I think one of [Obama's] great failures, it's obvious to me, is his lax treatment in comments on marijuana,” Sessions said at the hearing. “It reverses 20 years almost of hostility to drugs that began really when Nancy Reagan started ‘Just Say No.’ ”

He added that lawmakers and leaders in government needed to foster “knowledge that this drug is dangerous, you cannot play with it, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about . . . and to send that message with clarity that good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

The tides could quickly turn, specially with such vocal opponents of cannabis being appointed to attorney general...

...we have made so much progress, but until federal legalization, we must stay vigilant and continue the good fight for the rights of cannabis users, growers, medical patients, and businesses.

-eg
 
JustAnotherHuman said:
AwesomeUsername said:
Legal, illegal, doesn't make much of a difference IMO.

Cannabis is such a common plant to come across by that even in a shit place where nobody has any sort of drugs, jobs or money someone always has some weed.

It is rarely laced and 99% of the times you know what you're getting. Doesn't matter if it's sativa, indica, hybrid, landrace or some crazy new genetic mix they have going on all of them contain THC and CBD.

Even if you don't get a fancy pharmaceutical grade oil, or a capsule containing purified cannabanoids why does it matter?

It's easy to come across by, as accessible as beer, easy to grow, high yield and not all parts of the plant will get you high if you're not up to it and you still get the medicinal effects.

You like to get high too? Well, you can do that too and get your medicinal benefits.

As history has already shown us... Banning something will not prevent people from manufacturing it, selling, buying or "keep the streets clean". Who wants it and/or needs it will find a way to get it.

If cannabis was legal to begin with probably nobody would bother to make such a thing as CBD oil, instead shops would sell hashish, hemp leaf tea (with CBD of course), maybe even some bud much like they do with other herbal products.

This is all true AwesomeUsername, however the principle is the real issue here. We know that prohibition doesn't work, and not just that, it actually causes more harm. This is clearly evident to anyone who looks at the War on Drugs and what it's doing to people. The fact that the DEA is still pushing this prohibition agenda in the face of all this is what really gets me.

AwesomeUsername, you're completely right in saying that banning substances does not prevent or reduce drug use, in fact, the opposite is the case. However, criminalisation does prevent people from using substances that could actually benefit them. There are people who won't use a drug, even if that drug could help them, just because that drug is illegal. This seems patently ridiculous to me, that someone would deprive themselves of potential benefits just because the government says it's illegal. But that's just the anarchist in me speaking lol. :d

Everybody knows the government is full of shit. In this day and age a huge majority of us has access to internet. The internet is the birth of the global mind, you have all information of any sort of significance that has ever been documented just a click away.

Ignorance is nowadays a choice.
 
AwesomeUsername said:
JustAnotherHuman said:
AwesomeUsername said:
Legal, illegal, doesn't make much of a difference IMO.

Cannabis is such a common plant to come across by that even in a shit place where nobody has any sort of drugs, jobs or money someone always has some weed.

It is rarely laced and 99% of the times you know what you're getting. Doesn't matter if it's sativa, indica, hybrid, landrace or some crazy new genetic mix they have going on all of them contain THC and CBD.

Even if you don't get a fancy pharmaceutical grade oil, or a capsule containing purified cannabanoids why does it matter?

It's easy to come across by, as accessible as beer, easy to grow, high yield and not all parts of the plant will get you high if you're not up to it and you still get the medicinal effects.

You like to get high too? Well, you can do that too and get your medicinal benefits.

As history has already shown us... Banning something will not prevent people from manufacturing it, selling, buying or "keep the streets clean". Who wants it and/or needs it will find a way to get it.

If cannabis was legal to begin with probably nobody would bother to make such a thing as CBD oil, instead shops would sell hashish, hemp leaf tea (with CBD of course), maybe even some bud much like they do with other herbal products.

This is all true AwesomeUsername, however the principle is the real issue here. We know that prohibition doesn't work, and not just that, it actually causes more harm. This is clearly evident to anyone who looks at the War on Drugs and what it's doing to people. The fact that the DEA is still pushing this prohibition agenda in the face of all this is what really gets me.

AwesomeUsername, you're completely right in saying that banning substances does not prevent or reduce drug use, in fact, the opposite is the case. However, criminalisation does prevent people from using substances that could actually benefit them. There are people who won't use a drug, even if that drug could help them, just because that drug is illegal. This seems patently ridiculous to me, that someone would deprive themselves of potential benefits just because the government says it's illegal. But that's just the anarchist in me speaking lol. :d

Everybody knows the government is full of shit. In this day and age a huge majority of us has access to internet. The internet is the birth of the global mind, you have all information of any sort of significance that has ever been documented just a click away.

Ignorance is nowadays a choice.
Exactly AwesomeUsername! The Internet is changing the game! This is why I think the War on Drugs' end is assured. You can't have something like the War on Drugs, which relies on propaganda and misinformation in this age of information. The two simply cannot coexist.
 
JustAnotherHuman said:
...The Internet is changing the game! This is why I think the War on Drugs' end is assured. You can't have something like the War on Drugs, which relies on propaganda and misinformation in this age of information. The two simply cannot coexist.
Was my thoughts too til some years ago, the misinformation uses the same means to reach their goal. If there's one real surprise in my life time, it's been the renaissance of religious fundamentalism, it's success on global scale, and it certainly doesn't seem to be threatened by "more communication". The lie that Kratom is just like Opium and Hell is fruitfully spread by the same means.

But I get your drift and I still refuse to believe that lies can endure, but the formula of lies cancering the mind is still hot and running and this might have been the largest error of the sleeping make believe part of us, to underestimate it all. Plus the fear that an eventual "solution" is as sick as the problem it wants to solve.

I do get the drift: in time things must and will fall into place, like gravity, but god darn somehow the lies have an ace in their sleeve we can't ignore, a vulnerability in our software, a correcting mechanism that wants us to kill ourselves? An automated self regulating population mechanism, provided by our beloved 'nature'?
:?:

I read seldom a book, but "The Alchemist" of Paulo Coelho, new age as it might be, stroke a chord in me in the way that the protagonist did not really frontally engaged to change the forces that seemed to act against him, but he sailed 'in his way' meandering nicely between the threads that were upon him. He was mainly focusing on his drive and spend energy mainly there instead of on the treads that were upon him. This approach could be seen as sticking your head in the ground aka denial, but the book suggested, and my life path seems to acknowledge, that there is more than only frontal attack of what hinders you. Of course who feels called to fight must do and I sympathize. But the alternative way, meandering nicely around and between the threads, focus on your very consciousness flourishing, having the balls to see the lies you are living yourself, working on that, could ripple effect and spread out per the back door of inter-connection, creating change eventually in a more rigorous way than you could ever imagined. I know it spells like new age, but I believe in quantum potentials.

For example you could hate Trump & Co and fight it hateful frontally. One could dedicate a life time to it, and for those feeling called to fight I think they should do and I'd call them warriors. But then I also consider the stealth warriors who ease tension/fear in their own hearth, who radiate that and 'infest' people around them, infesting quantum space which penetrates the white house walls without effort and to which no wall is high enough. I'd flavor it with love and understanding of the 'crying child' no matter it's age or seat on a president throne. But one can't succeed being a fruitful sender if the work hasn't been active internally, be it to degree. For example I recognize the Trump in myself, aside a Gandhi in myself too and whatnot, and all of the contradicting stuff it brings forth. I do not find a solution to it within myself. But then I learn to blanket it all with acceptingly understanding that it is so, to come to rest in it.

I understand and feel the people who prohibit, their economic reasoning and deceit. If I look to myself a long time ago then I wouldn't give myself much credits for a better consciousness.

Will it ever be ok?
If we look at the world as a static classroom where we learn, then at a certain point one expects for all students to be able to read and calculate. We look at the world with same sort of expectation: when will we all be smart/conscious?
Then comes the game changer: it is not a static classroom. There keeps poring in new ones at a constant slow rate while some (near) graduate as smart. And there is not a dedicated teacher (Jesus and Co are silent these days), only the near graduates themselves that has to educate the new ones. It is a 'flow' classroom where never everyone is at same level, the class can never graduate as a whole. Though there are spontaneous graduates dripping out constantly as fearsome unconscious new ones dripping in. It's especially the new ones going for power games. So waiting/wanting/expecting a vast conscious 'human world' is not going to be for very soon I guess.

This view accepts and expects pockets of unconsciousness and sees the task at hand: becoming a good teacher yourself (working on your own lies) while strategically meandering between the pitfalls with an own focus.

Sorry for the rambling :p
 
AwesomeUsername said:
JustAnotherHuman said:
AwesomeUsername said:
Legal, illegal, doesn't make much of a difference IMO.

Cannabis is such a common plant to come across by that even in a shit place where nobody has any sort of drugs, jobs or money someone always has some weed.

It is rarely laced and 99% of the times you know what you're getting. Doesn't matter if it's sativa, indica, hybrid, landrace or some crazy new genetic mix they have going on all of them contain THC and CBD.

Even if you don't get a fancy pharmaceutical grade oil, or a capsule containing purified cannabanoids why does it matter?

It's easy to come across by, as accessible as beer, easy to grow, high yield and not all parts of the plant will get you high if you're not up to it and you still get the medicinal effects.

You like to get high too? Well, you can do that too and get your medicinal benefits.

As history has already shown us... Banning something will not prevent people from manufacturing it, selling, buying or "keep the streets clean". Who wants it and/or needs it will find a way to get it.

If cannabis was legal to begin with probably nobody would bother to make such a thing as CBD oil, instead shops would sell hashish, hemp leaf tea (with CBD of course), maybe even some bud much like they do with other herbal products.

This is all true AwesomeUsername, however the principle is the real issue here. We know that prohibition doesn't work, and not just that, it actually causes more harm. This is clearly evident to anyone who looks at the War on Drugs and what it's doing to people. The fact that the DEA is still pushing this prohibition agenda in the face of all this is what really gets me.

AwesomeUsername, you're completely right in saying that banning substances does not prevent or reduce drug use, in fact, the opposite is the case. However, criminalisation does prevent people from using substances that could actually benefit them. There are people who won't use a drug, even if that drug could help them, just because that drug is illegal. This seems patently ridiculous to me, that someone would deprive themselves of potential benefits just because the government says it's illegal. But that's just the anarchist in me speaking lol. :d

Everybody knows the government is full of shit. In this day and age a huge majority of us has access to internet. The internet is the birth of the global mind, you have all information of any sort of significance that has ever been documented just a click away.

Ignorance is nowadays a choice.

This article titled "Jeff Sessions’ Coming War on Legal Marijuana" should be very concerning...

Misc. Commentary on government and psychoactives:
the government always tries to paint itself as the mother hen, concerned about her errant chicks. And so, to keep you from crashing into other people on the freeway, to keep you from leaping out of buildings or committing society, we have to control these drugs. As a matter of fact, you know, this is absurd. More people die because of alcohol than all illegal drugs combined in a given year. The government is not your friend on this issue. The government is very concerned to control the mass mind. And marijuana -- my God, since the British Commission on Hemp, which was in 1889, I believe -- the British East India Company commissioned a study of hemp -- they have spent millions and millions and millions of dollars to find something, anything, you name it, wrong with cannabis. There is nothing wrong with cannabis. It is the most thoroughly tested, pawed over, and examined drug in human history. And they just come up with the lamest stuff. I mean, they tell you, you know, you're gonna have tits. Give me a break. They say, 'You won't be motivated in your job.' Like your job is supposed to be the (pinnacle) against which all things are to be measured.

And I think people on our side of this question have been tremendously naive, because people just think, 'We just have to convince them that it's harmless.' *It ain't harmless.* It is a knife poised at the heart of dominator values. It would make the modern industrial assembly line, political loyalites, the macho image projection -- all of these little tricks that they're running are severely eroded by cannabis. And they will stop at nothing to eradicate it. Look at the budget of the DEA -- what are they doing? They're giving, 65% is dedicated to cannabis eradication. Heroin gets 20%, coke gets all the rest. It's demonstrably absurd the way the money is spent, unless you have a secret agenda of some sort. And if your agenda is to supress the evolution of unwanted social attitudes in the American public, then you have to keep your eye on cannabis very very closely. The new guy who heads the War on Drugs, Martinez? This guy, I heard him on NPR this week, and his most passionate moment in the half hour interview was, he said, 'We have pushed the price of an ounce of cannabis past the price of an ounce of gold, and we're going to keep it that way.' Nothing about eradication, talk about keeping the price high. The fact that they refuse to tax it when they're starving for revenue shows that there must be a secret agenda. It doesn't make any kind of sense. -terence McKenna

"Full of it" or not governments are the people who have influence and power in politics...and many of them will ignore the facts because the lies back-up their agenda or coincide with their personal views.

Facts officially died in 2016.

We all know senator sessions is a dinosaur, a prehistoric throwback with no place in the modern world, and when he says
“we need grown-ups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it’s in fact a very real danger.” -senator sessions
or
Sessions said at the hearing. “It [cannabis legalization] reverses 20 years almost of hostility to drugs that began really when Nancy Reagan started ‘Just Say No.’ ”He added that lawmakers and leaders in government needed to foster “knowledge that this drug is dangerous, you cannot play with it, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about... and we need to send that message with clarity that good people don’t smoke marijuana.”
it makes a difference, as he has been appointed a seat of power and has influence of those in power....

"good people" don't smoke cannabis" is a despicable statement...

What's more scary is that sessions actually believes this whole-heartedly, it's as if he is stuck in a time-warp, still watching "reefer madness" and trying to enact politics in the style of Harry j. Anslinger.

You can still have a war on drugs in the age of information and the internet...

Specially using the internet, which can be coopted by propagandists to spread false information. we saw this in politics this year, there was "fake news" and an atmosphere where a politician could make a false statement, and people will believe it because it coincides with their own personal view, people would rather push lies that corroborate their own personal views than accept facts which demonstrate an error in their personal thinking and convictions,

...so even though cannabis is benign, when people hear Jeff sessions say "marijuana is dangerous", those who politically oppose cannabis will accept it, regardless of the facts...

Drugs are exploited by governments as a means of generating large sums of untraceable cash to fund foreign rebel armies fighting America's enemies, and to fund black projects.

During Viet nam, America was allied with general pao, and his anti-communist rebel army, now, as these armies were rebels, they had no hard currency, but they did have heroin, so the CIA used their "air-America" airlines to distribute heroin across the globe to fund these armies.

during the 80s our government was focused on fighting communism is south America, and cocaine/crack became the dominant drug on the streets. Same situation, cocaine was used to fund rebel armies who are fighting enemies of American interests.

https://www.anoniem.org/?http://www...ry-of-cia-involvement-in-the-drug-trade/10013 This link outlines instances of government exploitation of drug markets

...Reagan tried to take this same drug exploitation model, but rather than applying it to selling drugs, he sold weapons to Iran to fund contras in Nicaragua, and got caught, he blamed oliver north, who got off the hook because his secretary fawn hall destroyed all the documentation...research "Iran contra" for more information

It's no surprise that we are at war in th middle east, and in the middle of a heroin epidemic, all those rebels in Syria fighting against Assad and their own government surly do not have any stores of gold or precious metal, they don't have any land or resources, but they do have heroin, which uncle Sam will gladly distribute to put money in their pockets...

It all revolves around governments keeping these compounds as contraband so they can exploit and control the drug market.

Rather than go any further into my boring drug rant, I'll reference some terence McKenna on the topic:
When I wrote this book, I did a lot of research on an area I didn't know that much about, which is, let's say from 1500 to the present, drugs of addiction. And what I discovered is drug smuggling is like assassination. If the government isn't involved, it never seems to really happen. And governments have been using drugs for centuries as forms of secret revenue. This whole sugar thing that I laid out to you, those were decisions made by the crown heads of Europe in collusion with the Pope. It wasn't common people who set those policies in place.

During the 1960's, when the black ghettos began to come apart, suddenly number three China white heroin was cheaper and more available than it had ever been in any time in this history of the heroin problem in the United States. Why? Because the CIA saw, you know, all these black guys are getting up, a bunch of uppity n****** as the government calls them, you just smother it in heroin. Get everybody either hooked or making money...

And they don't care really about the effects of drugs, and one group, one faction will work against another. For example, I'm a great afficianado of hashish, and hashish became very hard to get in the United States in the late 70's. But as soon as the Russians invaded Afghanistan, suddenly there was massive amounts of excellent Afghani hashish, at prices that nobody had seen for fifteen years. Well, the reason was, the CIA knows that hashish is not really a problem. But what they wanted is, they wanted an income for the mujahadin. And they had to pay for all these weapons. So they just started bringing it in wholesale. And it wasn't even a smuggling operation. I mean, I received reports from people who said, you know, 'Smuggling? They're not smuggling. They're unloading it on pier 39, union local 1030 is taking off, you know, five hundred pound blocks of hashish by the tens of thousands.' And the day the Afghan war ended? They staged an enormous series of interlocking busts on their own infrastructure, and they closed it down, and they pulled it to pieces.

When Khomeni kicked out the Shah, the Iranian heroin business then fell under the control of the mulahs, and at that point, suddenly cocaine emerges as a major problem in the United States, because we just switched our supply lines. We could no longer depend on Iranian heroin, because we couldn't depend on these screwy Islamic fundamentalists, so we just turned toward all of these company assets in Honduras and Ecuador and Columbia. Very, very cynical.

You know, it's only been a hundred and twenty years since the so called opium wars. Very few people know what the opium wars, what was the issue in the opium wars. Well, it turns out the British government wanted to deal opium in China, and the Chinese Emperor told them to get lost. And they flipped. And they sent naval units, and they laid siege to several Chinese cities, and they forced the Chinese imperial court to agree that they could deal as much opium as they wanted on the wharves of Shanghai...

The Japanese, when they invaded Manchuria in the Second World War, they immediately began producing heroin and opium in vast amounts, not then as an economic strategy, but as a strategy to break the will of the Chinese population by encouraging addiction, and there was vast amounts of opium addiction. If any of you saw 'The Last Emperor,' you recall that his mistress was severely addicted to opium, and it depicted it in a number of scenes.

So governments have very cynically manipulated drugs, so that the drugs which make it possible for capitalism to function are cheap and freely available, and the drugs which erode dominator values, or cause people to question their situation, are savagely supressed.
-terence McKenna

More insight from McKenna:
Modern industrial civilization has very skillfully promoted certain drugs and supressed others. A perfect example is caffeine. Caffeine -- I hate to tell you this -- caffeine is a fairly dangerous drug. It isn't dangerous in that a cup of coffee will kill you, but a lifestyle built around caffeine is going to -- you're not going to live to be a hundred years old, or even seventy, unless you are statistically in the improbably group. Why is caffeine not only tolerated but exalted? Because, boy, you can spin those widgets onto their winkles just endlessly without a thought on your mind. It is *the* perfect drug for modern industrial manufacturing. Why do you think caffeine, a dangerous, health destroying, destructive drug, that has to be brought from the ends of the earth, is enshrined in every labor contract in the Western world as a right? The coffee break -- if somebody tried to take away the coffee break, you know, the masses would rise in righteous fury and pull them down. We don't have a beer break. We don't have a pot break. I mean, if you suggested, 'Well, we don't want a coffee break. We want to be a ble to smoke a joint at eleven,' they would say, 'Well, you're just some kind of -- you're a social degenerate, a troublemaker, a mad dog, a criminal.' And yet, the cost health benefit of those two drugs, there's no comparison. Obviously, pot would be the better choice. The problem is, then you're going to be standing there dreaming, rather than spinning the widgets onto the nuts. (laughter)

Coca leaves would be very good. I suspect in the near future we may see the legalization of coca as a sop to the mentality that wishes to see cocaine... Andy Weil, who's a good friend of mine -- we don't agree on everything, but -- a few years ago he had great enthusiasm for a coca chewing gum. And I never got on the bandwagon because I didn't see that we needed another high focus industrial stimulant on the market. But coca would be great, and certainly in the Amazon, if you're a petrone, you encourage your workers to chew coca. I mean, they're worthless without coca. Give them coca and put a machete in their hands and they will just flail for hours at the bush.

Another example that's interesting, that shows how blinded and unaware we are of how drugs have shaped our society...We all know that slavery ended in the United States in the Civil War. And most people, if you question them, think that slavery existed before the Civil War in many places back into ancient times. This is not true at all. Slavery died in Western civilization with the collapse of the Roman empire. During the Dark Ages and the medieval period, if you owned a slave, you owned *one* slave. It was the equivalent of owning a Ferrari or a Lamborghini. It was an index of immense wealth, and social status, and that slave would be a houseboy, or a cook or something like that, someone close in to you, taking care of you. It was inconceivable to use slave labor in the production of an agricultural product, until Europe acquired an insatiable desire for sugar.

Now, let's think about sugar for a moment. Nobody needs sugar. You can go from birth to the grave without ever having a teaspoon full of white sugar. You will never miss it. Throughout the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, sugar was a drug, a medicine. It was used to pack wounds, to keep wounds septic. And it was very expensive and there was very little of it. Nobody even knew where it came from. It was called cane honey, because they knew it came from some kind of jointed grass, but nobody had a clear picture of what sugar was.

Well, when you extract sugar from sugar cane, it requires, in pre-modern technology, a temperature of about 130 degrees. You cannot -- free men will not work sugar. It's too unpleasant. You faint, you die from heat prostration. You have to take prisoners and you have to chain them to the sugar vats. And so, before the discovery of America, in the fifty years before the discovery of America, they began growing sugar cane in the east Atlantic islands, Medeira and the Canary Islands. And they brought Africans, and sold them into slavery specifically for sugar production.

Now when we get American history, they tell you that slaves were used to produce cotton and tobacco. In fact, this is not quite the truth. They had to find things for slaves to do, because they brought so many slaves to the New World to work sugar, and they had so many children, that then they just expanded and said, 'Well, we've used slaves to work sugar, we might as well use them in cotton and tobacco production.' In 1800, every ounce of sugar entering England was being produced by slave labor of the most brutal and demeaning sort. And there was very little protest over this. It was just accepted. To this day, sugar cultivation in the third world is a kind of institutionalized slavery. Christian, you know, the Popes, the kinds of Europe, all of Christian civilization acquiesced in the bringing back of a practice that had been discredited during the fall of Rome, in order to supply the insatiable need for sugar. It was an addiction. It had no cultural defense whatsoever. -terence McKenna

Sorry, I have been working on my tendency to write such lengthy and information laden posts.

-eg
 
entheogenic-gnosis said:
Sorry, I have been working on my tendency to write such lengthy and information laden posts.
Protip: you can make your posts even more lengthy by quoting the entire thread so far at the beginning of your posts.
 
entheogenic-gnosis said:
Does this affect legal cannabis states? Somehow I doubt it...

Not about this specifically (I lean toward the Farm Bill protecting 'hemp'-derived CBD) but yes, anything the DEA rules in regard to cannabis technically affects legal states.

It's just that legal states have crafted systems in defiance of federal law (essentially ignoring the DEA and Controlled Substances Act in many ways) so it wouldn't REALLY affect legal states. In any case, they have access to high-CBD products with non-negligible amounts of THC (like the 20:1 THC:CBD strains) that are most likely superior to 50-state legal CBD due to the entourage effect.
 
Guys, are you aware that the DEA didn't actually make CBD oil illegal?

I mean, it's almost true, but 1) no substance has changed legal status, 2) CBD oil was not specifically mentioned.

Marijuana extracts have been illegal for as long as marijuana itself has been. Now the DEA gave them a specific code. So up until now it was be categorized under the same code as bud, and now under something else.

CBD oil can be extracted from marijuana (cannabis plant with THC content above cutoff level) or hemp (cannabis plant without THC content above cutoff level). Hemp extracts aren't illegal. Yes it's dumb, but that's US law (and well drug law in general) for you.

And even so, don't forget that the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted only a few years before Emancipation. It's always darkest before sunrise.
 
PsyDuckmonkey said:
Guys, are you aware that the DEA didn't actually make CBD oil illegal?

I mean, it's almost true, but 1) no substance has changed legal status, 2) CBD oil was not specifically mentioned.

Marijuana extracts have been illegal for as long as marijuana itself has been. Now the DEA gave them a specific code. So up until now it was be categorized under the same code as bud, and now under something else.

CBD oil can be extracted from marijuana (cannabis plant with THC content above cutoff level) or hemp (cannabis plant without THC content above cutoff level). Hemp extracts aren't illegal. Yes it's dumb, but that's US law (and well drug law in general) for you.

And even so, don't forget that the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted only a few years before Emancipation. It's always darkest before sunrise.
Ah, the voice of reason. Thank you so much for this post!


Kind regards,

The Traveler
 
. CBD oil can be extracted from marijuana (cannabis plant with THC content above cutoff level) or hemp (cannabis plant without THC content above cutoff level). Hemp extracts aren't illegal. Yes it's dumb, but that's US law (and well drug law in general) for you.

It was my understanding (EDITED with link below) that the DEA classed CBDs derived from hemp the same as that derived from cannabis (or Marijuana, the nomenclature seems to shift) , thereby classing CBDs under the same schedule as THC extracts. I may be wrong, it's been known to happen, but i thought that was the issue.

This is from Leafly, so it's just media source, but what is stated below is his i understood it.
.Is your CBD derived from hemp? Doesn’t matter to the DEA. The new extracts classification applies to all “extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols.” Hemp is not a separate genus. (Although it may be a separate species; lot of debate on that point.) Legally speaking, hemp is simply cannabis with no more than 0.3 percent THC content.
And even so, don't forget that the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted only a few years before Emancipation. It's always darkest before sunrise.

Good point.
 
Back
Top Bottom