Tyler Gansky Galenas Show Me Cannabis Uncensored "As the channels of communication become more and more monopolized,

and party machines and economic pressures, based on vested shams, continue to monopolize the chances of effective political organization, the opportunities to act and to communicate politically are minimized. - C. Wright Mills, 1951 Police arrested an estimated 858,408 people for cannabis violations last year. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report of 2010, of those charged approximately 89 percent were charged with possession only. At that rate, a citizen is arrested for violating cannabis laws every 30 seconds in America. And as if that is not enough, the proposed budget for the War on Drugs for fiscal year 2011 is over $15 billion, paid for by hard working tax-payers (Stop the Drug War). With so many American criminals locked up and tax dollars spent in the wake of a federal crack down on all things cannabis, the issue of marijuana prohibition has been growing in the U.S, and with good reason. By creating a prohibition of cannabis in the United States, the Federal Government and the private sector companies involved in the U.S. Government's revolving door have successfully accomplished censoring the issue of marijuana and subsequently attaching a negative connotation to it. This suppression of information has been carried out through the use of the marketing tools, government funded biased research, and big business interests being carried out through a money dominated political system. However, despite corporate interest and political bias, a growing counterculture has begun to emerge in America today surrounding the issue of marijuana. According to the Gallup Poll, 80 percent of Americans think marijuana is not a dangerous drug. That is quite the number in comparison to the amount of households that would have answered much differently during the days of Reefer Madness. That being said, to fully understand the censorship of marijuana one must first know the history.

In the grand scheme of America, marijuana prohibition is quite new. For over 150 years, Americans grew hemp as a cash crop after recognizing its many benefits. Not only did it produce many useful textiles needed for the Colonists in early America, but as a recreational drug as well. In fact, according to our current laws, Thomas Jefferson and many of our founding fathers would be considered criminals today for their cultivation of cannabis. Many of them were industrial hemp farmers and, ironically, the Declaration of Independence is written on hemp paper. However, since the introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937, the entirety of the cannabis plant has been attacked by the United States Government. This piece of legislation was pushed forth by Harry Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and his partner William Randolf Hearst. After seeing a great career opportunity in the narcotics sector of the government, Anslinger pushed forth the Reefer Madness message through Hearst, who happened to own a large chain of newspapers. After recognizing the looming threat that hemp posed to his hefty investment in the paper industry, Hearst wasted no time in spinning the marijuana topic in his newspapers (Musto). After publicizing this message through the use of yellow journalism, the topic sparked a push for prohibition from other big industries that would also be threatened by legalization. This played an quintessential role in the issue because of the historical context. With the potential threat of World War II in the air, many large corporations did not want a product that could be quickly mass produced at little expense and then used to create a variety of goods. Considering that hemp, the strongest natural fiber on earth, comes from the cannabis plant, marijuana prohibition was the easiest way to justify the push to stop it from threatening the wealthy from losing money on their investments. But these were not the only factors. Anslinger and Hearst, being men of their time, both held prejudices against other races and projected them through marijuana claiming that it makes white women want to fornicate with Negros. Much of this racial bigotry can be seen in the wide spread propaganda film titled Reefer Madness in which marijuana causes a man to lose his mind , rape a woman and kill a man. At the time, many Americans were not aware of the benefits of hemp or even

what marijuana was. In fact, the term marihuana was often referred to as a Mexican racial slang, further exacerbating the radicalism and racism rooted its prohibition (Musto). So, after years of setting the ground work, Anslinger brought the legislation to Congress. He used many Hearst-backed editorials about the evils of marijuana, and failed to mention the benefits of hemp that are derived from the cannabis plant. From this information, rooted in the racial connotation within the word Marihuana at the time, the meetings were swift and the legislation was passed, much to the relief of the corporations threatened by cannabis production. Since this act was passed, the government has only enacted one influential piece of legislation regarding marijuana in Congress, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970. According to this legislation, marijuana is currently scheduled along side heroin and LSD for lacking any medical value whatsoever. As sad as it is, the actions of a group of misinformed, prejudiced, and greed-driven people are still the ground work for the mainstream understanding of the cannabis plant, as well as the law enforcement surrounding it. Amidst the growing movement to change these laws, many lawmakers are starting to see the misguided motives behind imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people every year. Currently, the state of Missouri is in the process of attempting to legalize marijuana by overriding the corporate dominated political system through the use of ballot initiative. This will allow Missourians to bring the issue to a vote, putting their state on the front line of the war on cannabis. And this is not the first initiative of its kind. In 2010, California purposed a similar piece of legislation called Proposition 19 which called for the legalization and regulation of marijuana. It was rejected with 46% of the vote (Hall). But that has only been grounds to build on for the movement. Since then, Missouri has taken steps to draft Show-Me Cannabis Regulation based on the California legislation, making both states pioneers in the movement. But other states are acting as well. Aside from Missouri, California and Colorado have also enacted legislation that will put the issue of marijuana regulation on the ballot in

November 2012. Although only three states are pushing for taxation similar to alcohol, 16 states have legalized medical marijuana for chronic suffering patients, debunking the no medical value claim that classifies it as a Schedule 1 narcotic. With so many people interested in why exactly the government has enacted such harsh laws on a seemingly harmless, potentially beneficial plant, the marijuana movement only has potential to grow. And with that continued support for informed citizens will eventually come decriminalization and regulation. However, the outcome of the situation greatly depends on the continual censorship of the counter-culture toward marijuana in America today. One major tool in the arsenal of the government, as well as the private interests that are involved in American politics, is advertising. Corporations spend millions of dollars a year to research and perfect the most effective marketing schemes available, and there is no question that they work. Rooted in psychological research, these highly advanced advertising methods are developed solely for grabbing the viewers attention. Unfortunately for pro-marijuana supporters, these ad campaigns have been systematically deployed to susceptible American households across the nation for half a century. From the beginning of prohibition in the form of Reefer Madness to the ads for A Drug Free America funded by alcohol and tobacco companies, hidden interests have fueled the campaign against marijuana (Males). It is no mystery why alcohol and tobacco companies would spend millions of dollars to promote the idea of a Drug Free America, when their addictive products kill thousands of Americans every year. Because of the capitalist market that America is based upon, the introduction of a new stimulant that could potentially detract from the revenue of major alcohol and cigarette manufacturers has caused them to target marijuana in an attempt to stop this threat. By systematically deploying one negative message regarding marijuana to the American society repeatedly, these interests have succeeded in using marketing to mold the way many citizens view the issue of cannabis. Essentially, big business interests have single-handedly funded the fight to keep marijuana illegal, and marketing has only been one of their tools.

The businessmen of America today are operating in the same manner that Harry Anslinger and his accomplice, William Randolf Hearst, went about their campaign in the late 1930's- through the media. Because the mainstream media is owned and operated by six main corporations, often referred to as The Big Six, Americans are only shown what a few people want them to see. Essentially, these multi-million dollar companies control everything the citizens of America see, hear, and think. And because of the threat that cannabis poses to them remaining in that position of power, it has been targeted. This is not to say, however, that independent news sources are unavailable for an outside opinion. But that is not to say the are well known. With the dominance of few large media syndicates, many Americans obtain their information solely from their favorite nightly news station. Once systematic advertising campaigns have shifted popular opinion to an extent, and the media has diverted the American eye to something else, the censorship has only begun. The next role in maintaining prohibition in America has been lobbyists. Any group that would be adversely effected by the legalization, decriminalization, or medical use of cannabis have, in response to this threat, lobbied against any kind of progress in the marijuana reform. Any and every agency that is paid for, or exists solely by playing some kind of hand in the prohibition of cannabis, whether it be executive, judicial, corrections, or law enforcement, have all been opposed to the reform of current laws due to monetary interests. This list doesn't even come close to number of industries that would lose money from the production of hemp. That includes any businesses involved in the production of paper, rope, synthetic fibers, medicine, alcohol, tobacco and other competing cash crops such as corn. Many powerful companies involved in these industries have clear and apparent motives for lobbying against marijuana. To put this threat into perspective, one acre of hemp is the equivalent to three acres of cotton (Bouril), and according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, hemp can be used to produce over 25,000 different products. Whether these claims can be proven on paper or not, it is clear that many powerful people could stand to lose a lot of money if cannabis reform were ever to happen. Coincidentally, legislators are not

voting to accurately represent their constituents when 80% of voters believe marijuana isn't even dangerous. That being said, someone must be influencing them to vote in favor of privatized interests, and that is exactly what lobbyists are paid to do. But even without the influence of lobbyists, the government would also lose a substantial amount of control if marijuana laws were reformed, leaving plenty of motive to maintain prohibition. In fact, perhaps the most blatant censorship of marijuana has been carried out by the Federal Government. Coincidentally it was an act facilitated by the same administration that began the War on Drugs. President Richard Nixon, shortly after redirecting the war on poverty to narcotics, began spearheading the fight against marijuana. On March 22, 1972, The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (a.k.a. "the Shafer Commission") returned to the Nixon Administration with the results of a government funded study on the effects of marijuana. What they found was completely opposed to Nixon's then-current agenda for the War on Drugs. "Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety," concluded the report's authors, led by then-Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania. "Therefore, the Commission recommends ... [the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration no longer be an offense (National Commission of Marijuana and Drug Abuse Report). As a result of the conflicting viewpoints of science and the current agenda, Nixon and Congress disregarded the report. According to transcripts between Nixon and then-Gov. Raymond Shafer, who was the chair of the commission, Nixon used blunt intimidation tactics to try and suppress the findings before the report was released (Weingarten). "You're enough of a pro to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what Congress feels ... and what we're planning to do would make your commission just look bad as hell," Nixon warned in a May 26, 1971 conversation.

In the end, however, it didn't matter. The findings were subsequently rejected and claimed to be false. As a result, new and more effectively biased government funded studies have been publicized due to their corresponding viewpoints with the current agenda. Fortunately for advocates this is not the only government study that yielded results contradictory to the current agenda on marijuana. In 1974, University of Virginia researchers found that marijuana greatly reduced the size of cancerous tumors in lab rats, yet the DEA quickly suppressed the findings. Despite the efforts of the powers that be, however, a copy of the report was leaked and is still available today in public medical records. But no matter how many government funded studies come back debunking the myths about the dangers of marijuana, the Feds continue to push for more research that will yield results suitable to their liking. In the wake of these potentially enlightening studies being suppressed, Americans have since been exposed to more highly advocated government funded studies that reiterate the dangers of the addictive drug. One highly publicized research study carried out by Dr. Robert G. Heath came to the conclusion that marijuana use kills brain cells. However, what the advertising failed to mention was that the researchers nearly suffocated a monkey with marijuana smoke for an extended period of time. Due to the lack of oxygen in the brain, the monkey lost brain cells, yet most people who cite this research have little knowledge of how the findings were obtained. Other sources claim that marijuana is a gateway drug. However, there is no way of proving this theory. If this were to be proven true, then how could scientists prove that marijuana was the origin? Couldn't these findings also be attributed to other substances? Couldn't alcohol usage be a gateway to heroine usage? The fact of the matter is that a primary rule in scientific studies is not to assume causal relationships and the gateway theory is a prime example of a study that breaks this rule. Either way, it is no question that due to the carcinogenic properties of smoke, inhaling marijuana is dangerous for the lungs. However, that does not encompass the many other mediums for ingesting marijuana, such as capsules, vaporization, or the consumption of marijuana based foods,

therefore can not be used to justify it as a dangerous drug. With so many conflicting views on the topic of marijuana, it is hard for the average citizen to stay informed with an unbiased opinion. Regardless of the opposing arguments, it is easy to see that the numbers don't lie. When $20 billion is being spent each year on a drug war that mainly targets marijuana, it is easy to see the money could be put to better use. Especially in the wake of millions of dollars being cut from education funding. Because of the corrupted political system in which America runs on, citizens of the United States have been subject to the manipulation of ideas and the flow of information that shapes the very basis for the way they think. With the ease of access that technology has brought in the 21st century, corporate interests have had no problem entering into the average American home and influencing the way families and individuals view a given topic. In this case, censorship has been carried out through an agenda rooted in racism, greed, and maintaining a disproportionate amount of power. These businessmen and the politicians (sometimes one in the same) have successfully been able to create, control, and profit from a sector of society in America through the passing of legislation and regulations, as well as the manipulation of majority opinion. Sadly, the exceeding influence of corporations can be directly attributed to the revolving door in American politics in which politicians enact legislation regarding the industry in which they are associated with (for example, a high ranking member of Monsanto also being a regulator of the EPA). But despite these factors, the counter-culture surrounding cannabis has been a continuous presence in America. Even though the majority of Americans believe marijuana to be harmless, many do not believe it to be a positive force in society, yet would like to see a sensible policy enacted regarding its usage. But regardless of the polls, the powers that be continue to push forth a message that has directly resulted in forming public policy that misrepresents majority opinion. As a direct result of this censorship, more than 13 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana related charges since Nixon's War on Drugs began, and innocent Americans are still being targeted by a government

motivated by greed. Unfortunately, it would appear as if C. Wright Mills was correct, the monopolization and control of the American Government has effectively minimized the opportunity to become political informed and organize against an unjust cause. With all of these factors in play that continually influence the political opinions of millions of Americans on many different topics, one may pose the question: is this freedom? The clear answer is no.