Ann Du Bois speech, October 7th, 2009

ANN DU BOIS: Good afternoon, Page 87 everyone. My name is Ann Du Bois, and I live in Fairfield.
I want to correct a previous statement at the Des Moines hearing. I misspoke when I referred to a study published in Prevention Research Journal. What I meant to say was the journal Cancer Prevention Research in reference to a July 2009 study of cannabis cancer prevention.
Okay. Before I begin, I have a quick question, mabye by showing of the hands, seriously. This is for the board and staff and the audience. Who has read or been made to read George Orwell’s 1984 book? Anybody? George Orwell was really Eric Blair who lived in England and India from 1902 to 1950 and wrote what he meant to be a satirical novel, 1984.
One more question for everybody. Have you read Jack Herer’s The Emperor Wears No Clothes?
ROBERT MANKE: Pieces of it.
ANN DU BOIS: Staff? I recommend it. It is rewarding reading, and it could inform your opinion very much.
Okay. Back to Orwell. At Buckingham Palace, March 2009 Felipe Calderon was presented with a first edition of George Orwell’s Page 88 nightmare-ish book which tells of the totalitarian regime and coined the concept Big Brother by the queen herself.
In Mexico this August when sixth graders returned to their classrooms, many were stunned to discover that nearly 30 pages had disappeared from their history textbooks. The missing pages discussed the European Conquest of Mexico and three centuries of colonial rule, the conquest of an estimated 25 million indigenous people, the cruel indignities the indigenas suffered under the Spanish yoke. This further depreciates the role of Mexico’s Indians and flies in the face of the country’s traditional anti-colonial trajectory.
What’s my point? The 1984 party slogan, who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. Today the 5,000 year medical history of cannabis has almost been forgotten.
In the United States because of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, it was removed from the pharmacopeia. Now it is confined to schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act as a drug that has ahigh potential for abuse, lacks an accepted Page 89 medical use, and is unsafe for medical use under medical supervision.
What does this have to do with why we are all here today? Because way back in April, Judge Novak’s ruling states “The board must determine whether the evidence presented by the petitioner, meaning Carl Olsen, is sufficient to support a finding that marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States and does not lack accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.”
Instead of acting as mandated by Iowa state code, instead of being in compliance with the Controlled Substance, instead of being in compliance with the Controlled Substance Act, and while acting in contempt of court orders, the board scheduled these meetings.
Page 90
I hold you in contempt. If I thought I could get away with a citizen’s arrest, I would have brought the brought duct tape. When you accepted your appointment, you accepted the responsibility to make an independent determination on state scheduling, to act for the health and the best interest of the good of the people of Iowa. Not as politicians, as scientists. Science should be in the hands of scientists, not political ideologues.
I saw a video of the board’s meeting in response to Carl’s success. What I witnessed was Orwellian. Board member complaints ranged from, and I quote, “a lack of science and any up-to-date more recent information” to “having a very difficult time saying there was any type of scientific-based type of evidence given that day” to “I don’t have anything else to add, but I didn’t see any what I would call scientific-based evidence” to a bizarre playing of the “Well, if all your friends jumped off the bridge, does that mean you should jump off the bridge?” card.
To quote George, “All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Between 1840 and 1900, European and American medical journals published more than 100 articles on the therapeutic use of cannabis indica. The Indian Hemp Paper — I’m sorry. The Page 91 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report from 1894, an exhaustive seven-volume, 3,281-page report that concludes “Moderate cannabis use produces practically no ill effects.”
The Panama Canal Military Study from 1916 to 1929 concluded “There is no evidence that marijuana is habit-forming.” So it can be said that the 100 years between 1837 and 1937 were truly the Golden Age of Medical Cannabis.
President Franklin Roosevelt, a 33rd degree Freemason and one of the greatest illuminists who ever lived once uttered a statement that is shockingly bold. He said “If something happened, you can bet it was planned.”
When the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was formed in 1932, Harry Anslinger was appointed its head. Treasury agents were beginning to operate on their own agendas. Deep in the throes of the Depression, Congress began to re-examine all federal agencies. Anslinger began to fear that his department was in danger of emasculation.
Although worldwide, hemp was still a huge business, in 1935 the treasury department began secretly drafting a bill called the Marihuana Tax Act. The treasury department’s general Page 92 counsel, Herman Oliphant, was put in charge of writing something that could get past both Congress and court disguised as a tax revenue bill.
So in 1937 Anslinger went before a poorly attended committee hearing and called for a total ban on marijuana. He stated under oath “This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effects of which cannot be measured.”
Bureaucrats planned a hearing to avoid discussion of the full House and presented the measure in the guise of a tax revenue bill brought to the six-member House Ways and Means Committee. This bypassed the House without further hearing and passed it over to the Senate finance committee where it was rubber-stamped into law. Once on the books, Anslinger would administer the licensing process to make sure that no more commercial hemp was ever grown in the United States.
At the last minute, a few pro-hemp witnesses showed up. Dr. William C. Woodward, also legal counsel for the American Medical Association, spoke in defense of cannabis medicine and in protest of the way the bill was handled.
Asked point-blank if he though federal legislation was necessary, he replied “I do Page 93 not. It is not medical addiction that is involved. Woodward went on to criticize the way the word marijuana had been used deliberately to confuse both the medical and industrial hemp communities.

“In all you have heard here thus far, no mention has been made of any excess use of the drug or its excessive distribution by any pharmacist, and yet the burden — and yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on the doctors and pharmacists of this country, and may I say very heavily, most heavily possibly of all, on the farmers of this country.
“We cannot understand yet why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any initiative, even to the profession, that it was being prepared. No medical man would identify this bill with a medicine until he read through it because marijuana is not a drug, simply a name given to cannabis.”
A few days later Representative Fred Vision of Kentucky was asked to summarize the AMA’s position. He lied. He lied to the effect the medical group — he lied to the effect the medical group’s legislative counsel, Woodward, “Not only Page 94 gave this measure full support but also the approval from the AMA.”
The act passed without a role call. Passage of the act put all hemp industries firmly under the control of very special interests that benefited most from its repression over the years, prohibition police and bureaucrats working in collusion with petrochemical companies, timber companies, alcohol, drug industries, the pharmaceutical drug companies, and today, the urine testing, property seizure, police, and prison industries.
Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. In September 1937 hemp became illegal. The most useful crop known became a drug, and our planet has suffered ever since.
New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia who in response to the 1937 federal ban on pot requested a report from the New York Academy of Medicine which concluded marijuana was not medically addictive, not under the control of a single organized group, did not lead to hard drugs, and was not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes and that publicity Page 95 concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York was unfounded.
18th century German philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel Long ago developed, among other things, what he called a principle of thesis, antithesis, synthesis to explain the process of deliberately enacting social disorder and change as a road to power. To achieve a desired result, one deliberately creates a situation, the thesis, devises a solution to the problem created by that situation, antithesis, with a final result being the ultimate goal of more power and control.
The U.S. government in its so-called War on Drugs made this process a keystone of their drive for total control of all individual actions that in their view were not, in Mussolini’s terms, inside the state and thus controllable by the same.
The War on Drugs is merely a horrible extension and intensification of these tried-and-true Hegelian methods, a war in which we all lose.
Quoting from a Trojan Horse: Anti-Communism and the War on Drugs by Bruce Bullington and Alan Block, administration of justice, their abstract, “This work argues the U.S. Page 96 War on Drugs is a misnomer. We suggest, instead, that it is secondary to traditional anti-Communist foreign policy concerns. Thus, the War on Drugs serves to mask the U.S. counter-intelligence and paramilitary presence abroad.
In the ’80s top U.S. CIA, to fund the Afghan radicals, the Mujahideen, in their fight against the Soviets decided to generate funds through the poppy rich Afghan soil and heroin production and smuggling to finance the Afghan war. Senator John Kerry’s 1988 U.S. Committee on Foreign Relations report on the contradrug links concluded that members of the U.S. State Department are involved in drug trafficking.
In 1996 journalist Gary Webb published reports detailing how Contras had received crack cocaine into Los Angeles to fund weapons purchases.
Like a war on terrorism, the War on Drugs is a true war waged by the U.S. Government against its own people.
At present the greatest danger in medical use of marijuana is its illegality which imposes much anxiety and expense on suffering people, forces them to bargain with illicit drug dealers, and exposes them to the threat of criminal Page 97 prosecution.
Even Harry Anslinger admitted it wasn’t a gateway drug until it was made illegal. Richard Lawrence Miller’s Drug Warriors and Their Prey draws detailed comparisons of the War on Drugs in the U.S. today with the events in 1930 Germany that led to Hitler’s Third Reich and the attempted destruction of the Jewish people.
CAROL DEPROSSE: Enough, please. There are other people that want to speak.
DEBBIE JORGENSON: You’ve exceeded your ten minutes.
LLOYD JESSEN: Ann, do you need a couple more minutes?
DEBBIE JORGENSON: Or can you just provide your statement?
ANN DU BOIS: Yeah, I can provide my statement.
LLOYD JESSEN: If you need another couple minutes, that’s fine.
ANN DUBOIS: The world — I’m going to quote Albert Einstein. “The world is a dangerous place to live and not because of the people who are evil but because of the good people who don’t do anything about it.”
Page 98
Iowa does not have the authority, either the board or the Iowa legislature, to say marijuana does not have accepted medical use in the United States because 12 states — 13 states say it does have accepted medical use, and federal law gives those states the right to make the determination, and federal law does not have a definition for accepted medical use.
Will you stand on the right side of history or stand with the feckless schills of big pharma, big gov, having made whores of your souls? Thank you.



One thought on “Ann Du Bois speech, October 7th, 2009

  1. Nothing but love here, coming straight for the heart. RIP

    Posted by Bud Palm | January 22, 2014, 11:34 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Subscribe to posts by email!

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: