The hemp plant's leaf--known widely today by the term "marijuana."
This page will attempt to pull together information that is already on-line. I do not foresee many people following these links who do not care about marijuana prohibition--it's an issue that does not pique their interest--BUT, those writing a paper for school should find these sources a time-saving place to begin their research.
The reality and what you have been taught about marijuana are two entirely different things. Of course this statement can be known to be true only by the persons who have taken the time to research the issue. There is so much to research that such a task could easily qualify as a course of study in and of itself. Unfortunately, it's a course that few have passed. People uninterested in the issue cannot justify the time and energy to educate themselves about the facts of marijuana and its prohibition. This is a phenomenon that permeates a lot of our public policy making today. Those who care about an issue are informed, but whatever the majority believes determines what the law will be, no matter how erroneous those beliefs may really be.
First off, please understand that "marijuana" was a term that was invented by the media and government prohibitionists in the Bureau of Narcotics in the 30's. Indeed, few knew at the time that the term they were seeing in headlines really referred the same plant many knew only as "hemp" which was--and always had been--a common crop. Hemp has been used for thousands of years for textiles (clothing, paper, canvas, rope, paints, varnishes); for food, and for medicine, which is one reason George Washington raised hemp on his plantation. See examples. The AMA did not learn that the bill to outlaw "marijuana" was going to affect the cannabis plant (what doctors called it) until 2 days before it came up for consideration! The AMA even sent a representative to testify against the bill (which was called the "Marihuana Tax Act"). Be aware that some pro-legalization advocates are attempting to redefine "hemp" to exclude any cannabis plant with more than a certain percentage of THC, the ingredient that produces the "high," and to limit the term "marijuana" to include only cannabis with THC content above the threshold. Example. In my opinion, such a distinction is arbitrary. Although some cannabis strains produce almost no THC, others produce quite a lot; they are still, essentially, the same plant.
The term "marihuana" was used in the 30's to generate a good deal of public hysteria about a "new" threat to the public's safety. Example. "Marijuana" was reported to be highly addictive and violence-inducing. The term was used to generate headlines and support for legislation in much the same way that gun prohibitionists have used the amorphous terms "assault weapon," "cop killer bullet" and "Saturday night special" to advance their gun control agenda. Two weeks after the Supreme Court's decision upholding the National Firearms Act's (NFA) $200.00 "transfer tax" on automatic firearms, the Marijuana Tax Act was introduced. This Act attempted to prohibit marijuana through the mechanism of a prohibitively high tax of $2,000.00 per ounce. Congress, at that time, did not feel it had the power under our Constitution to simply prohibit possession of a plant (remember, they felt it was necessary to have a Constitutional amendment authorizing them to prohibit alcohol). But, since Congress did have the power to levy taxes--under the "taxing power" given Congress in the Constitution--and because the perversion of this taxing power in the NFA had been upheld by the Supreme Court, the same approach was used in the Marihuana Tax Act--an example where the corruption of one part of the Constitution, the taxing power and the Second Amendment, laid the groundwork for the erosion of other civil rights--the right to grow a mere plant. Now, to see a graphic example of the same phenomenon, click here. It is a gallery of pictures from a recent pro-legalization rally in Gainesville, Florida.
Today, marijuana is classified as a "Schedule I Narcotic." To be on schedule one, the DEA has to "find" as a fact that a drug has no known medical use. Since marijuana has a long history of medical uses (examples), from treating glaucoma and epilepsy to asthma and the relief of nausea (the reason that it is used today by people undergoing radiation therapy), such a classification is absurd. A suit was instituted several years ago to force the DEA to reclassify it as a schedule II drug, which would at least allow researchers to experiment with it (Cocaine is on schedule II). A DEA administrative law judge (an "ALJ") initially ordered that the evidence of medical use was so overwhelming that marijuana had to be reclassified. But since the Commissioners of the DEA have the power to overrule such decisions by ALJ's, they did so. Thereafter, federal court review of the DEA decision was begun. The DEA fought this tooth and nail, and they ultimately triumphed in a decision that defies logic and reason. Here's the story from the man responsible for this effort.
There is an organization, NORML, which is working to end hemp prohibition. Here is another hemp page and a European site for still more information.
If you have read this far, then you have an open, inquisitive mind, and you should be commended. Good luck in handling the truth, because accepting the truth about marijuana and it's prohibition leads to the conclusion that the world is a crazy--and uncaring--place in which to live.