A post the skin care and pharmaceutical industry doesn't want you to read…
Cannabis Sativa – The most hated and loved plant in world history
There is a plant that has been used for thousands of years to help people get healthy. A plant whose substances collaborate with our body and help it regain balance. A plant that today and throughout history has helped millions of people to improve their quality of life, but is at the same time one of the most hated ever - Cannabis Sativa.
How can a plant that naturally exists in our environment have become so controversial? How could it have had such a significant impact on politics, the skin care and healthcare industry? That's what we're going to explore in this article. Welcome to a fascinating journey through the controversial history behind Cannabis Sativa.
To be able to understand how this plant became so controversial, we have to travel back in time, approximately 120 years. In the early 20th century, the medical world underwent a dramatic change that would shape the future of herbal medicine. An important event that contributed to this change was Abraham Flexner's 1910 report.
The Flexner Report, officially known as "Medical Education in the United States and Canada," was commissioned by the American foundation "Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching". The purpose was to review medical education in North America and propose reforms. The report was authored by Abraham Flexner, a man with limited medical training but with close connections to financial and industrial interests. The report was in fact an instrument for shaping medical education in accordance with the interests of the rapidly growing pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment.
One of the most controversial aspects of The Flexner Report was its criticism of medical schools that taught herbal medicine. Flexner considered such schools obsolete and recommended that they be closed. This decision was economically motivated, as herbal medicine was often based on natural remedies that could not be patented. On the other hand, the report favored medical schools that taught chemically prepared drugs and methods, thus promoting the growing pharmaceutical industry.
The consequence of The Flexner Report was that many medical schools that taught herbal medicine were forced to close or convert to teaching chemical medicine. This led to a decline in the popularity of herbal medicine and an increase in sales of patentable drugs. The economic and political forces behind this change favored the big pharmaceutical companies and strengthened their dominance over the health care system.
Despite the fact that The Flexner Report already in the 1910s made it difficult and sometimes impossible to sell and work with plant-based medicine, doctors continued to prescribe Cannabis Sativa for various ailments right up to the end of the 1920s. At that time, another actor entered the picture.
The man's name was Harry J. Anslinger and his name are associated with a dark period in American history - the period when the war on cannabis began. Anslinger, who headed the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) from 1930 to 1962, was instrumental in criminalizing and demonizing cannabis in the United States.
To understand Anslinger's motives, we must examine the historical context. During the 1930s, the United States underwent a radical change. The recovery from the Great Depression was in full swing, but the economy was still fragile. Anslinger used this political climate to his advantage. A central part of his war against cannabis was to shift the focus from other major societal problems and establish the FBN as an important authority with himself as a power factor.
Economic motives may have been one of the driving forces behind Anslinger's war on cannabis. During the Prohibition era, alcohol prohibition had ended, and federal agencies like the FBN needed a new "enemy" to justify their existence and their budgets. Anslinger chose cannabis as his target and conducted an aggressive propaganda campaign to portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatened America's youth.
Further financial motives can be seen in relation to Anslinger's connections to companies such as Dupont. Dupont had developed synthetic materials such as nylon and rayon, which were considered to threaten the hemp-based textile industry. Anslinger, who had close relations with Dupont, saw cannabis as a threat to Dupont's financial interests and helped push for its criminalization.
But it wasn't just economic factors that drove Anslinger. Personal motives may also have played a significant role. Anslinger was notorious for his racist and moralistic views, and he often used these exaggerated stereotypes to smear cannabis users. He argued that cannabis led to violence and crime and that it was the "musician's drug", used to reinforce prejudice and create fear among the American public.
Anslinger also used his position to hunt down political rivals and personal enemies. He used the FBN to carry out searches and arrests of people he believed threatened his power. This personal abuse of the authorities shows that Anslinger's war on cannabis was also a method of preserving his own power and authority.
Harry Anslinger was also the mastermind behind the film which many consider to be what made the American population very afraid of Cannabis. The film was called "Reefer Madness" and is a pure propaganda film, produced and ordered by the American state.
The film, which was originally released in 1936, was, as previously mentioned, intended as a propaganda film and over time became a symbol of the exaggerated fear of cannabis at the time. In the film, we follow a number of young people who are seduced by marijuana and lose control of their lives. The film attempts to portray cannabis as a dangerous substance that leads to crime, violence and moral decay. It is important to remember that this film was released at a time when knowledge of cannabis and its effects was lacking, and there was a general anxiety about the drug.
One of the most interesting aspects of "Reefer Madness" is how it was used as part of a wider propaganda campaign to demonize cannabis and push for its criminalization. The film was part of an ongoing effort by federal authorities and politicians to create public opinion against the drug. It helped reinforce the image of cannabis as a dangerous substance, even if it was not supported by scientific evidence.
This propaganda film had a significant impact on how the average American viewed Cannabis Sativa. Despite this, doctors continued to prescribe Cannabis until the year 1946. Then came the "death blow" to Cannabis.
In 1946, Cannabis Sativa was removed from the US Pharmacopoeia, which is a kind of reference book that describes which substances may or may not be used in research and/or medicine in the United States. This led to a series of restrictions and changes in how this plant and its use were viewed in the United States.
When Cannabis Sativa was removed from the pharmacopoeia in 1946, it led to several significant changes in its use and regulation:
- Criminalization: One of the most noticeable changes was the criminalization of cannabis. It now became completely illegal to sell and buy Cannabis.
- Stigmatization: Cannabis began to be stigmatized as a dangerous drug, and it lost its reputation as a medicinal plant. This was one of the main factors that led to the public viewing it as dangerous and illegal.
- Research and medical use: The removal from the pharmacopoeia limited the possibilities for scientific research on cannabis. It became more difficult to assess its medicinal potential and harmful effects. For 80 years, until the beginning of the 21st century, cannabis was heavily controlled, preventing researchers from investigating its therapeutic potential.
- International impact: The US removal of cannabis from the pharmacopoeia also had international consequences. Other countries were influenced by US policy and adopted similar restrictions on cannabis use and trade.
- The rise of a black market: With increased criminalization and control of cannabis, demand for the black market increased. This created an entire economy based on the illegal cultivation, distribution and sale of cannabis.
It now became completely illegal to research and use Cannabis for medical purposes. This situation prevailed for almost 60 years.
After Cannabis Sativa was removed from the US Pharmacopoeia, reports were commissioned on several occasions to investigate the possible link between cannabis use and crime. The most famous of these reports went by the name "The Shafer Commission".
The Shafer Commission was appointed by President Richard Nixon in 1971 with the task of evaluating the national and international consequences of cannabis use. The commission would also propose recommendations to better regulate the use of cannabis in the United States. The results and conclusions presented by the commission were disappointing and led to a series of problems that still affect US drug policy today.
The Commission's main conclusion was that cannabis posed no serious threat to society. It recommended that the criminalization of cannabis should be reconsidered and that some limited forms of legalization and decriminalization be considered. This position ran counter to prevailing drug policy, and the Nixon administration quickly dismissed the commission's recommendations.
One of the most critical problems with the Shafer Commission was that its conclusions and recommendations were ignored by the responsible decision makers. Instead of following scientific findings and expert advice, the Nixon administration followed an extremely repressive line, leading to an escalation of the war on drugs. This repressive strategy has resulted in massive prison sentences for non-violent crimes, created a system that disproportionately affects minorities, and caused serious social and economic problems.
Furthermore, the proposed drug policy reforms of the Shafer Commission have never been meaningfully implemented. The proposals put forth regarding the legalization and decriminalization of cannabis did not become reality until many decades later, and many Americans are still suffering from the harmful consequences of the criminalization.
Outside the borders of the United States, despite the strong opposition to cannabis and its healing properties, significant research was conducted on the subject. Above all, it was an Israeli man who had a hugely positive impact on why cannabis was once again recognized for its healing properties. The endocannabinoid system (ECS) is a fascinating and complex part of the human body that is of great importance for the regulation of various physiological processes and for maintaining homeostasis (balance) in the body. The discovery of this system is the result of years of research and pioneering work, and there is one specific man to thank for identifying and describing the ECS: Raphael Mechoulam.
Raphael Mechoulam, born in 1930 in Bulgaria and raised in Israel, is a pioneering researcher in the fields of pharmacology and organic chemistry. His interest in cannabis and its effects on the human body led him on a lifelong journey of discovery that would change our understanding of our body's biochemistry.
In 1964, while Mechoulam was working at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he and his team isolated for the first time delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive compound in cannabis that gives its characteristic "rush" or "high". This was a groundbreaking moment, as it made it possible to explore and understand the effects of cannabis on the human body at a molecular level.
In 1992 came the next big breakthrough. Mechoulam and his NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) colleagues discovered and characterized anandamide, the first endocannabinoid found in the human body. This neurotransmitter is involved in a variety of processes, including pain regulation, immune function, and mood. Mechoulam and his team showed that the body produces its own cannabinoids, not just as a reaction to cannabis intake.
Raphael Mechoulam's work has had a significant impact on medical research and has opened doors to explore the use of cannabinoids in medicine. This has also helped to reduce the stigma surrounding cannabis and increase our understanding of how this plant interacts with our own biological systems.
In summary, the whole situation can be described like this: Cannabis Sativa is a plant that for over 4000 years has been used to promote healing in the human body. It is only in the last 120 years that this plant has encountered resistance and even been banned, often for economic (and formerly racist) reasons. The knowledge of the endocannabinoid system and cannabis' influence on this system validates the use of non-patentable herbal medicine. This is the biggest nightmare for the pharmaceutical and skin care industry.
To achieve a truly healthy body, we must begin to consider the function of the endocannabinoid system and use cannabis and its cannabinoids to help the body help itself.
However, it is important to note that the pharmaceutical and beauty industries may try to silence voices that highlight knowledge in this area, as they are two multi-billion dollar industries threatened by an unpatentable plant. Therefore, it is up to you and me to spread this information to as many people as possible.
If you have found this post interesting, please share it with your friends and acquaintances. Also share it with healthcare professionals, skin therapists and others in the pharmaceutical and beauty industry.
Together we can make a difference. For real.
Sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3178858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543812/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/arts/design/Anslinger-drug-czar-exhibition.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20092328
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness
Reefer Madness: A History of Marijuana - Larry "Ratso" Sloman (Author), William S. Burroughs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312634/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafer_Commission
https://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/laguardia.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7605027/
Comments