Jim Gray talking about America?s “failed and hopeless policy of drug prohibition”. Describing himself as a “conservative judge” who has never used illicit drugs or marijuana, he nevertheless spells out why he believes that prohibition of cannabis is putting children and young people in more danger than regulation would.

His arguments are presented in a way that is easily understood by all, and backed up by facts and experience from his years working in the criminal justice system and with youth outreach projects. If you have ever wished you had a unquestionably credible and succinct case against prohibition to share with someone, this is exactly the right video.

_{The following is the text of a speech by Lester Greenspoon, M.D. recently delivered to the 2011 NORML conference}.

In 1967, because of my concern about the rapidly growing use of the dangerous drug marijuana, I began my studies of the scientific and medical literature with the goal of providing a reasonably objective summary of the data which underlay its prohibition.  Much to my surprise, I found no credible scientific basis for the justification of the prohibition.  The assertion that it is a very toxic drug is based on old and new myths.  In fact, one of the many exceptional features of this drug is its remarkably limited toxicity.  Compared to aspirin, which people are free to purchase and use without the advice or prescription of a physician, cannabis is much safer: there are well over 1000 deaths annually from aspirin in this country alone, whereas there has never been a death anywhere from marijuana. In fact, when cannabis regains its place in the US Pharmacopeia, a status it lost after the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, it will be seen as one of the safest drugs in that compendium.  Moreover, it will eventually be hailed as a “wonder drug” just as penicillin was in the 1940s.  Penicillin achieved this reputation because it was remarkably non-toxic, it was, once it was produced on an economy of scale, quite inexpensive, and it was effective in the treatment of a variety of infectious diseases.  Similarly, cannabis is exceptionally safe, and once freed of the prohibition tariff, will be significantly less expensive than the conventional drugs it replaces while its already impressive medical versatility continues to expand.

Given these characteristics, it should come as no surprise that its use as a medicine is growing exponentially or that individual states have established  legislation which makes it possible for patients suffering from a variety of disorders to use the drug legally with a recommendation from a physician. Unfortunately, because each state arrogates the right to define which symptoms and syndromes may be lawfully treated with cannabis, many  patients with legitimate claims to the therapeutic usefulness of this plant must continue to use it illegally and therefore endure the extra layer of anxiety imposed by its illegality.  California and Colorado are the two states in which the largest number of patients for whom it would be medically useful have the freedom to access it legally.  New Jersey is the most restrictive, and I would guess that only a small fraction of the pool of patients who would find marijuana to be as or more useful than the invariably more toxic conventional drugs it will displace will be allowed legal access to it.  The framers of the New Jersey legislation may fear what they see as chaos in the distribution of medical marijuana in California and Colorado, a fear born of their concern that the more liberal parameters of medical use  adopted in these states have allowed its access to many people who use it for other than strictly medicinal reasons.  If this is correct, it is consistent with my view that it will be impossible to realize the full potential of this plant as a medicine, not to speak of the other ways it is useful, in the setting of this destructive prohibition.

Marijuana is here to stay; there can no longer be any doubt that it is not just another transient drug fad. Like alcohol, it has become a part of our culture, a culture which is now trying to find an appropriate social, legal and medical accommodation.  We have finally come to realize, after arresting over 21 million marijuana users since the 1960s, most of them young and 90% for mere possession, that “making war” against cannabis doesn’t work anymore now than it did for alcohol during the days of the Volstead Act.  Many people are expressing their impatience with the federal government’s intransigence as it  obdurately maintains its position that ” marijuana is not a medicine”.  Thirteen states have now decriminalized marijuana.  And, beginning with California in 1996, another 15 states and the District of Columbia have followed suit in allowing patients legal access to marijuana, and  others are in the process of enacting similar legislation.  These states are inadvertently constructing a large social experiment in how best to deal with the reinvention of the “cannabis as medicine” phenomenon, while at the same time sending a powerful message to the federal government.  Each of these state actions has taken a slice out of the extraordinary popular delusion known as cannabinophobia.

Dr. Lester Grinspoon is Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and one of the leading experts on medicinal cannabis.

An article published on the website of Le Figaro last week (23rd March 2011)  aroused our curiosity as, in addition to vague threats about cyberpolice, it mentioned the well-known cannabis seed company Sensi Seeds on several occasions.

Picture used to illustrate what you can buy online, according to the paper

Fact or propaganda? An extract from the beginning of the article states:

“ [Based] In the Netherlands, the Sensi Seed website unapologetically advertises their ‘cannabis seedbank’ in all languages. They sell complete culture tents, similar in size  to wardrobes, ‘bloom boosters’ and even teach how to ‘grow with the Moon,’ to optimize growth according to the lunar calendar. From “Shiva Shanti” at 20 euros for ten seeds to the “Marley’s Collie”, 120 euros, “a strain of ganja celebrated by the great Bob Marley”, the bank offers hundreds of varieties. And even accessories: caps, t-shirts, playing cards. Everything is available worldwide, sent in express parcels.”

• Firstly, which companies would not promote their products on their website?

What seems to offend the newspaper is the casualness with which a company can advertise cannabis and hemp, but in Holland, freedom of expression is not limited by legislation as it is in France (where portraying any illegal substance in a good or positive way is strictly forbidden by law). Furthermore Bedrocan, the only company to legally grow cannabis in the Netherlands for pharmaceutical supply, uses Sensi Seeds varieties. What company would not display pride in such an achievement and credit to their product?

• As to advertising in ‘all’ languages, it is becoming quite normal, indeed essential, for a renowned international company to communicate in several languages. The Sensi Seeds website is available in nine languages, which for some journalists (at least those of Figaro), apparently covers every tongue.

• Factual error #1: No cultivation materials  are available on the site, neither tents nor crop fertilizer.

The company has indeed sold such equipment in the past, but in 2007 ceased to retail all types of grow and cultivation supplies both on the website and in the stores, located in  Amsterdam. As to the lunar calendar, though there are none on the site, they are easily accessible on the net and not only for cannabis growers. Farmers and gardeners have relied on such almanacs for thousands of years to successfully cultivate all types of crops; they are hardly a radical or subversive tool.

• Lost In Translation: “Marley’s Collie… a strain of ganja celebrated by the great Bob Marley”.

On the site sensiseeds.com the exact phrase is: “a strain of ganja to celebrate the great Bob Marley.”
Some confusion here: Le Figaro has a person who died 30 years ago celebrating a variety that did not exist during his lifetime! If anyone could celebrate cannabis from beyond the grave it might well be the unofficial Jamaican patron saint of smoking herb, but this would be a stupid claim for anyone to make, let alone a company that made a point of honoring him.

• Factual error #2: it is stated that Sensi Seeds sends everything they sell- including the cultivation materials mentioned earlier-worldwide, by express post no less.

The site has a page dedicated to the availability by country; the reader cannot fail to see  that most countries are not shipped to for legal reasons. The only countries available are European countries. This is not ‘worldwide’ in any way! Perhaps Le Figaro defines ‘the world’ as Europe, which would also account for the world only having nine languages. Perhaps the shock value of the article would be lessened by the truth: Sensi Seeds is in fact operating in accordance with French and European law. They were even wrong about the express delivery, although insured post is featured as a shipping option.

Illustration from the French police describing the main 5 evidences to catch growers

So this is the propaganda launched by a newspaper that is widely known for  very close links with the Elys?e (the Presidential Palace, French equivalent of the White House or 10, Downing Street).

The rest of the article is of the same ilk, describing the techniques used by French cyberpolice to track down criminals, using new technology.
It can be speculated that the article is a response to a program recently aired on TV channel France 2, which  openly discussed the legalization of cannabis in countries where freedom of expression is not restricted as it is in France. Did Le Figaro decide the French public needed a reminder  that essentially they live in a police state?

But what power does the French police have over a site hosted in another country? Technically they can discover who visits which website by spying on citizens and their Internet usage (not only in connection with cannabis), but it stops there. They cannot tell who actually bought a product on a (foreign) site, and who just visited. Dutch law is strict on the protection of personal data and in no way can France challenge the Dutch authority over the site.

Le Figaro are attempting to scare people who have chosen to self-produce a substance which is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. However the illegal cultivation of cannabis puts them in greater danger than if they turn to the black market to obtain it. In more and more cases people are growing for personal medicinal use, prepared to take the legal risk to obtain a safe an effective medicine denied them by their own government.

The first paragraph of the article describes the Netherlands as contradictory. This must make France, which has never ceased the production of hemp but has the most repressive laws in Europe regarding the use of cannabis, flat out hypocritical.

The only details that are correct in the article are the prices of seeds (apparently they cannot lie when it comes to money) and the conclusion, which grudgingly admits that the police, cyber or otherwise, must overcome one handicap: having cannabis seeds shipped to France is not a criminal offence.

We thank them however for realizing that Sensi Seeds is the quintessential place to buy cannabis seeds!

As some Americans have been, and continue to be, pointing at the utility of such measures, Tony Newmann, communications director for the Drug Policy Alliance gives his view on the conception of drugs:

ALL OF US USE DRUGS, BUT ONLY SOME OF US GO TO JAIL!

Despite a $40 billion a year “war on drugs” that is premised on the goal of creating a “drug-free society,” our country is swimming in drugs.

Most people start using drugs before they even leave the house in the morning.  Yes, that first cup of coffee is what many of us need to start the day.  The next drug that millions of Americans use, sometimes up to 20 times a day, is our nicotine! And then, after a long day of work, many of us head to a local bar or to our refrigerator and pour ourselves a cocktail, ice cold beer or a nice glass of wine.

And I’m just getting started.  There are over 100 million Americans who have used marijuana.  Thirty years after Nancy Reagan told us to “Just Say No,” half of high-school seniors will try marijuana and 75% will try alcohol before they graduate.  And what about the college students who use Ritalin to help them focus and put in long hours at the library? And how about all of the superstar athletes who use performance enhancing substances? What about all of the men ( and women ) who are deeply grateful forthe “little blue pill”? And how about the businessmen who stay up until three in the morning with the help of a “little bump”?

Drugs are so popular because people use them for both pleasure and for pain.  Drugs can be fun.  How many of us enjoy having some drinks and going out dancing? How many of us enjoy a little smoke after a nice dinner with friends? Many people bond with others or find inspiration alone while under the influence of drugs.  On the flip side, many people self-medicate to try to ease the pain in their lives.  How many have us have had too much to drink to drown our sorrows over a breakup or some other painful event? How many of us smoke cigarettes or take prescription drugs to deal with anxiety or stress? Throughout recorded history, people have inevitably altered their consciousness to fall asleep, wake up, deal with stress, and for creative and spiritual purposes.

While it is clear that drug use doesn’t discriminate and the majority of us are using one drug or another, the reality is that the war on drug users does discriminate.  More than 1.8 million people are arrested every year on nonviolent drug charges.  In New York City, “moderate” Mayor Bloomberg’s police arrested close to 50,000 people for marijuana possession in 2009 – and 87% of those arrested were black and Latino, despite similar rates of marijuana use as whites.  The reason for the discrepancy is that the NYPD stops and frisks blacks and Latinos – but not white people.  Last week the New York Times ran a front page story that showed blacks and Latinos were nine times more likely to be frisked than whites.

The racist enforcement of drug laws is not limited to just New York or just marijuana.  Thanks to the mass incarceration of people for nonviolent drug law violations, the U.S.  is the world’s leading jailer.  The U.S.  has 5% of the world’s population but has 25% of the world’s prison population.  Nationally, blacks are 13 times more likely to be incarcerated on drug charges as whites, despite similar rates of drug use.

Why are some drugs legal and other drugs illegal today? It’s not based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs – but it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs.  The first anti-opium laws in the 1870s were directed at East Asian immigrants.  The first anti-cocaine laws, in the South in the early 1900s, were directed at black men.  The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest in the early 1900s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans.

Too often, the stereotypical “drug user” is someone we see panhandling on the street or the image of a young person of color.  The reality is that most Americans use some drugs and most families include someone who is dealing with addiction to a legal or illegal drug.  By declaring a “war on drugs” we have declared a war on ourselves, our families, and our communities.

We have to learn how to live with drugs, because they aren’t going anywhere.  Drugs have been around for thousands of years and will be here for thousands more.  We need to educate people about the possible harms of drug use, offer compassion and treatment to people who have problems, and leave in peace the people who are not causing harm.  And we need to take action against the incarceration of so many of our brothers and sisters who are suffering behind bars because of the substance that they choose to use.

The recent photos of the Dutch Prime Minister wandering around in a ‘FUCK DRUGS!’ t-shirt and swigging from a can of Grolsch at two in the afternoon would suggest so.

He was visiting Volendam, the small fishing village where hard drug use is so prevalent it’s known as ‘Cocaine Town’ in  Amsterdam. Being spiked with Rohypnol and dragged to a festival might have explained all this, as well as why the t-shirt seemed to have been forced onto the politician over the top of his shirt and tie without due care and attention.

The group of laughing blokes in the background, drinking beer and taking phone photos of the CDA leader as he grins like a twit, completes the illusion that this is the PM having it large on a day off rather than a serious flesh-pressing junket just days before a general election.

New campaign to “FUCK DRUGS”

The reason for both his visit and his t-shirt turns out to be ‘Moedige Moeders’ (lit.’Courageous Mothers’), an anti-drugs group (so probably no Rohypnol was involved). The t-shirt accompanies their new ‘FUCK DRUGS!’ campaign. According to their website the Premier was wearing it as “an example to the youth”, who can presumably now use it as justification for wearing t-shirts with the word FUCK on them, delighting Christian Democrats everywhere.

In the same article the Mothers refer to the government’s drug tolerance policy as “hypocritical” and a “co-conspirator in all the disaster” of vandalism, football hooliganism, and violence. I assume this was pointed out to him as they were giving him beer and stuffing him into the t-shirt as it was his party that instigated the tolerance policy in the first place.

Beer is apparently ok with the Moedige Moeders. Their website lists alcohol as a drug and condones 1-2 glasses per day for women and 2-3 for men, with the handy recommendation of no alcohol for two days a week to prevent building up a tolerance. A more honest campaign slogan might be ‘FUCK UNTAXED DRUGS!’

Twitter This

The goal of preventing substance abuse and addiction, especially in children and young adults, is absolutely to be applauded. A photo opportunity with a vote-hungry Prime Minister supporting this cause should be a winner for both parties. The image that was placed on Twitter by Balkenende’s top media adviser Michael Sijbom, spread across the internet faster than you can say “OMG ROFL” and appeared on the front of the Volkskrant, should be an embarrassment to all concerned.

What’s in a name?

Giving a Dutch campaign an English name might seem like a good idea to make it ‘hip’ and ‘edgy’; using an English obscenity, even more so; and the word ‘fuck’ isn’t that offensive to the Dutch (just as the word ‘cancer’ isn’t that offensive to English speakers but is one of the worst things you can say in the Nederlands).

However, the global arena that politicians now perform in has an audience that is unlikely to assume the t-shirt supports a serious anti-drug group, especially when the wearer is holding a beer. Unfortunately for ‘Moedige Moeders’ their presence is still so small that most of the Dutch audience probably won’t realize either.

What the Mothers need is a good media advisor to help them come up with a more accurate campaign slogan that won’t offend English speaking people the world over. Perhaps Micheal Sijbom will have some free time once JPB realizes that people are not, in fact, laughing with him.

The only thing we would like to correct, is that you actually have to be 18 or older (not 16 or older) to buy weed in coffeeshops in the Netherlands (Holland)

The state’s medical-marijuana amendment, passed by voters in 2000, says that employers don’t have to accommodate medical-marijuana use in the workplace.

But another Colorado law, enacted a few years ago to protect cigarette smokers, prohibits firing employees for engaging in legal activities during nonworking hours.

That suggests that people who smoke medical marijuana before arriving at work could be protected under state law, whether their employers like it or not. And with roughly 30,000 Coloradans now estimated to be qualified to use medical marijuana, employers are growing increasingly uneasy.

It’s the kind of quandary employers in other states are have faced as well, as medical marijuana gains increasing acceptance.

“No cases have been litigated yet in Colorado, so we’re not sure how a court might rule or how a jury might find,” said Danielle Urban, an attorney with Fisher & Phillips LLP, a Denver-based employment law firm.

State courts in California, Washington, and Oregon have handled cases involving employees that were terminated for medical-marijuana use, and they all have sided with employers, she said.

However, none of those states had a law similar to Colorado’s “Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment” statute.

“An employer can always send an employee home if they’re under the influence,” said Vance Knapp, an employment attorney at Sherman & Howard LLC in Denver. “The tricky issue becomes what happens if an employer does a random drug test and an employee tests positive, but says ‘I’m not intoxicated; I’m using this on my own time to treat my chronic disease.’”

Unlike alcohol, elements of marijuana use can be detected for days or even weeks, making it difficult to determine how recently the drug was used.

“I’m a former prosecutor, and I can tell you that sometimes the trace elements of marijuana can be in a person’s bloodstream or hair follicles for three weeks, even after smoking one marijuana cigarette,” Knapp said. “It’s not like alcohol, where it burns off after a good night’s sleep and drinking some water.”

Read the full article here

Filed under: Cannabis News, medicinal, Quotes & Opinions, Society and Cannabis Tagged: alcohol, cigarette smokers, Colorado, companies, Danielle Urban, detected, employers, legal activities, medical marijuana, random drug test, Vance Knapp

If you thought that was strange, wait until you hear this.. The new chairman that will replace David Nutt, Les Iversen, had exactly the same opinion with regards to Cannabis. During a lecture in 2003 he said the following;

“There have been no deaths to date caused by use of cannabis. Cannabis should be legalised, not just decriminalized, because it is comparatively less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.”

In an article in 2003 he wrote that cannabis had been incorrectly classified for nearly 50 years as a dangerous drug and that it was one of the “safer” recreational drugs.

When he was questioned about these remarks during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Professor Iversen stated the following; “I don’t remember saying that. It’s certainly not my position now”

“We have now to confront the more potent forms of cannabis. We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness. I think it’s quite free for a scientist to change his mind when faced with new facts.”

We wonder what these new facts are? Is it the fact that he will get sacked, like David Nutt,  if he says that cannabis should be legalized? Or the fact that he would never have been appointed in the first place if he still had that opinion?

That is, the two terms are applied to most indoor weed that’s sold for profit, and both names are used to suggest that the cannabis being sold is highly potent, rather than to indicate any particular genetic heritage. Before being adopted as the strain-name buzzwords of the moment, both “Skunk” and “Kush” were fairly strictly defined strains, with clear breeding or geographical origins.

More worryingly, when the buzzwords of the youth or underground cultures seep into the mainstream, they get picked up by the hysterical MSM and turned into the latest scare story.

No doubt, all of the forum’s British members will be aware of the garbage that’s written and broadcast about “Skunk” in Blightly – as if it’s some new, child-incinerating super-weed that just dropped out of the sky, rather than a fairly common, medium-to-high potency strain that’s been around for at least 30 years.

What’s especially nauseating about this claim what it tacitly suggests. Most members of the current establishment (government and media) have personal experience of consuming cannabis, in their ‘experimental student days’ or whatever. The subtext of the “new, super-potent weed” claim is that, in hindsight, the harmless old ‘natural’ cannabis of their youth was actually fine after all (as was the hashish of the times, apparently, despite it being orders of magnitude more powerful than today, but that’s another story).

No matter that thousands were deprived of their liberty due to the draconian laws covering old-timey, harmless ‘natural’ cannabis in the 60s and 70s, it turns out that version of the demon weed was fine and harmless. Mistakes were made.
But this new “Skunk” weed … that really does live up to all the fantasies that were spread back then, about the stuff we now know to be harmless.

Anyway, it seems American prohibitionists have embraced the tactic of defining slightly more potent cannabis as a different drug deserving of even greater and more ridiculous penalties

As might be expected, US lawmakers have taken it to the next level.

Kirk and Law Enforcement: Super-Marijuana “Kush” Hits Suburbs
Monday, 15 June 2009

CHICAGO – U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, Lake County Metropolitan Enforcement Group Director Larry Lindenman, Waukegan Police Chief Artis Yancey and representatives from Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran’s office today unveiled tougher penalties for a new type of “super-marijuana” hitting the northern suburbs.   “Kush,” street slang for a strain of highly-potent marijuana, has a tretrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of at least 20 percent.  According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, the THC average of seized marijuana was less than 10 percent in 2007.  In the early 1990s, THC levels were less than 4 percent.

“According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 25 million individuals age 12 and older used marijuana in 2007 – significantly more than any other drug,” Congressman Mark Kirk said.  “That’s why Kush and other high-potency marijuana strains are so worrying.  Local law enforcement reports that Kush users are ‘zombie-like’ because of the extreme THC levels.  Drug dealers know they can make as much money selling Kush as cocaine but without the heavier sentences that accompany crack and cocaine trafficking.  Higher fines and longer sentences aren’t the total solution to our nation’s drug problem.  But our laws should keep pace with advances in the strength and cash-value of high-THC marijuana.  If you can make as much money selling pot as cocaine, you should face the same penalties.”

The rise of Kush mirrors the increasing popularity of high-THC marijuana, which has become more accessible with the rise of hydroponics.  Drug growers are able to strictly control light, temperature and humidity and can cross-breed to maximize THC content.  It takes growers approximately four months from planting to harvest to produce the high-potency marijuana.  Other types of Kush are known as Bubba, Paris, Bubble Gum, Sour and Orange Kush.

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Kush has been known to sell for as high as $600 per ounce – creating the same profit potential as crack cocaine. (Er.. really?)

Kirk’s legislation, the High-Potency Marijuana Sentencing Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2828), increases federal fines and sentences for the distribution of high-potency marijuana.  It defines high-potency marijuana as marijuana with a THC content of 15 percent or more.  The legislation targets drug trafficking only and not possession of marijuana.

Under current law, unlawful distribution, possession with intent to distribute, manufacture, importation and exportation of marijuana under 50 kilograms or 1 to 49 plants carries a maximum fine of $250,000 for an individual, $1 million for a group and up to five years in prison.  H.R. 2828 increases maximum fines to $1 million for an individual and $5 million for a group, with a maximum sentence of 25 years.  If death or serious bodily injury occurs, sentencing would be 20 years to life in prison.

A second offense after a drug felony conviction would result in a minimum fine of $2 million for an individual or $10 million for a group, with a maximum sentence of 35 years, or life if death or serious bodily injury resulted from the use of the marijuana.

Here is a list of some of the negative effects of the ban on cannabis:

1. The ban on cannabis means that in addition to the coffeeshops and people who grow for their own use, an illegal market in cannabis also exists. There is no possibility of control over this illegal market which leads to criminality, unsafe situations, and events that disturb the peace; and to which underage people have easy access.
2. The ban on cannabis makes large scale crops and export of the product into a lucrative source of income for criminal organizations which can then use this income for other criminal activities, or ‘wash’ it via money laundering operations that can disturb the legal economy.
3. The ban on cannabis encourages criminal and antisocial behavior: rules concerning safety and security (for growing and in the marketplace) are easily broken and this goes unpunished. Conflicts are resolved using violence.
4. The ban on cannabis leads to an increase in prices, as the producer in an illegal market calculates their risk into the price.
5. The ban leads to a migration of tourists to coffeeshops near the borders of the country, and the operation of ‘drug runners’ to transport the product. Simple solutions for this problem such as the proposal for a so-called ‘Weed Boulevard’ with legal supply logistics are held back by the ban on cannabis.
6. The ban on cannabis puts enormous pressure on the resources of the police and the justice system, which cannot then devote them to other, more important goals. Some of the methods used to enforce the ban limit the personal freedom of civilians and are a matter of contention in court.
7. The costs of enforcing the ban on cannabis are not justified by the results. Although the goal of the ban (an essential reduction in supply and demand) fails to come a single step closer, the ban itself is never brought forward for discussion.
8. The ban on cannabis damages the credibility of the government, given that the use of cannabis continues to be firmly naturalized in society.
9. The (world-wide) ban on cannabis is one of the pillars of the U.S. dominated War On Drugs, which has led to sizeable global violations of human rights; and severely damages both the environment, and the security of the populations of cannabis-producing lands.
10. The ban on cannabis impedes the development of the industrial applications of the plant, which is capable of making a very valuable contribution to a sustainable future.
11. The ban on cannabis makes it impossible to carry out standardized controls on the product. Therefore demands can hardly be placed on the product in terms of consistent quality, health, or accompanying information on the contents and effects of the product.
12. The ban on cannabis leads to unwelcome and unhealthy practices in production which negatively affect the quality and effects of the product, and thereby damage the health of the consumer.
13. The ban on cannabis criminalizes the cannabis consumer (over one million Dutch people), with negative social consequences for the people in question, their relationships, their family, and their home and work environment.
14. The ban on cannabis is a restriction of the right to freedom of expression. It legitimizes information about the supposed evils of cannabis, information that cannot be seriously tested for durability, credibility or truthfulness and yet is used as justification for the active enforcement of the ban.
15. The ban on cannabis damages the right of the individual to make decisions about his / her own body.
16. The ban on cannabis damages the right of the individual to possess a medicine that is necessary to maintain or support his or her health and wellbeing.
17. The ban on cannabis dissuades doctors from prescribing it to patients who could benefit from the effects; and delays the process of recognition of its medicinal applications in the treatment of multiple afflictions such as HIV and AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, cancer, and chronic pain.
18. The ban on cannabis denies the government the possibility of levying taxes on the product.