Roar Mikalsen - HUMAN RISING - radiofri..

Anslinger: “That is demonstrated by these seven boys, who said they did not know
what they were doing after they smoked marihuana. They conceived the series of
crimes in while in a state of marihuana intoxication.”
Senator Davis: “How many cigarettes would you have to smoke before you got this
vicious mental attitude toward your neighbor?”
Anslinger: “I believe in some cases one cigarette might develop a homicidal mania,
probably to kill his brother. It depends on the physical characteristics of the individual.
Every individual reacts differently to the drug. It stimulates some and others it
depresses. It is impossible to say just what the action of the drug will be on a given
individual, or the amount. Probably some people could smoke five before it would take
effect, but all the experts agree that the continued use leads to insanity.” 292
Den politiske prosessen som ledet frem til forbudet var som vi ser
korrumpert i forbudstilhengernes favør (mer om det) 293 : Anslingers ord var alt
de trengte for å vedta loven, og leger og andre kompetente fagpersoner på
området kom ikke til i debatten. Som det står i The Consumers Union Report:
“No medical testimony in favor of the proposed federal anti-marijuana law was
presented at the 1937 Congressional hearings. Indeed, the only physician to testify was
a representative of the American Medical Association — and he opposed the bill.
Marijuana, he pointed out, was a recognized medicine in good standing, distributed by
leading pharmaceutical firms, and on sale at many pharmacies. At least twenty-eight
medicinal products containing marijuana were on the market in 1937.” 294
American Medical Associations (AMA) representant under disse
høringene var Dr. William Woodward, som var lege og advokat. Han så loven
som lite formålstjenelig, og som han sa under høringene: “Since the medical
use of cannabis has not caused and is not causing addiction, the prevention of
the use of the drug for medical purposes can accomplish no good end
whatsoever. How far it may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug
that on further research may prove to be of substantial value, it is impossible to
foresee.” 295 Han forklarte kongressrepresentantene at det ikke fantes noen
pålitelig dokumentasjon som tilsa at bruken av marijuana var økt de senere år,
eller at det i det hele tatt var et viktig samfunnsproblem å ta tak i 296 .
Kongress-representantene var imidlertid ikke interesserte i
motforestillinger. Professor Charles Whitebread, som har studert lovprosessen
inngående, forteller:
156