Cannabis legislation

Some customers will require the results of the analysis to be interpreted or an opinion given, e.g. does the discharged water from the factory comply with the current legislation ) or how many cigarettes can be made from 2 kg of cannabis leaf There is now provision for this aspect of the work of an analyst to be included in the scope of accreditation of the laboratory to the Standard ISO/IEC 17025 2005 [1]. It is important to be clear about what is meant by Opinions and Interpretations. In the context of this book, it is the subjective expression given that is based on results, academic or scientific knowledge and experience gained over a period of time. 

Ultimately, the cultivation, sale, and possession of cannabis is illegal at present in most places. Individuals who use it for whatever purpose in most areas carry the risk of arrest and prosecution. From the perspective of addictiveness, it seems inconsistent that cannabis use is prohibited, while the use of alcohol and nicotine are permitted. Apart from arguments about the recreational use of cannabis, resistance to its medical application is even more inconsistent. For example, the opioids carry some risk for dependence, but with medical supervision they are useful medications and their abuse is minimal (Joranson et al. 2000). Whether use of cannabis is to be permitted and for which purposes (medical or recreational) remains to be collectively decided by society and the legislators it appoints. 

Despite early passive views on cannabis use in the United States, however, a gradual accumulation of momentum in opposition to marijuana developed after World War I. Much of the antipathy was based on cultural fears relating to cannabis use by Syrians in New York, East Indians in California and, principally, Mexicans in the Southwest. Much of the pressure for federal legislation regulating marijuana arose not from the FBN but from local law enforcement agencies in the South and Southwest who saw it as a link to violent crime presumably committed by Mexican immigrants. 

In all of the testimony, only one person raised any substantial objection to the Anslinger proposal. Dr. William Woodward, a legislative counsel for the American Medical Association, argued that Cannabis in medical preparations had not been abused and that the new provisions would cause hardship for doctors. He was quickly hooted down. House hearings concluded with no significant changes in the proposed bill, which then sailed through... 

The legislation is fnrther complicated because in Enrope, cannabis nsed for the manufactnre of cooking oils is also recognized. While possession of the seeds is not in itself illegal, it is illegal to plant them and grow cannabis from the seeds. 

Well into the 1930s, cannabis was an ingredient in a variety of over-the-counter medicines, such as remedies for stomach pain and discomfort, restlessness, and coughs (Iverson, 2000). One company marketed cannabis cigarettes for the treatment of asthma. These medicinal uses of cannabis rapidly began to decline, however, for two reasons. The first was the advances made in medicine and specific knowledge about various diseases and their treatments. The second factor was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This legislation markedly decreased prescribed medicinal uses of marijuana. 

In 1923, South Africa tried to enlist the aid of the League of Nations in outlawing cannabis on an international scale, but to no avail. Five years later, the country passed yet another anticannabis law. This was followed by still more anticannabis laws. The result was always the same - try though they might to legislate cannabis out of existence, South African lawmakers were never a match for the plant s tenacious hold over its devotees.. 

Unable to secure national support to outlaw cannabis, various state legislators moved on their own to prohibit its possession unless prescribed by a physician. In 1915, California passed the first such law. Shortly thereafter, nearly every state west of the Mississippi followed California s lead, e.g. Utah (1915), Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). 

Many northern states, however, also had anticannabis laws as early as 1915. To the legislators of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York, a narcotic was a narcotic, whatever its name. Cannabis was considered a narcotic and therefore was accorded the same status as opium, morphine, heroin, and codeine, all of which were proscribed. Thus, when New York City s Board of Health prohibited cannabis from the city s streets in 1914, the New York Times (July 30, 1914) reported that the drag was a "narcotic [with] practically the same effect as morphine and cocaine... [and] the inclusion of cannabis indica among the drags to be sold only on prescription is only common sense. Devotees of hashish are now hardly numerous here to count, but they are likely to increase as other narcotics become harder to obtain."... 

States were encomaged to enact laws similar to the Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act, which restricted the import and export of opium and coca. The act also encomaged the states to enact legislation prohibiting cannabis use. 

Lenne, M. G., C. Fry, P. Dietze and G. Rumbold (2001). Attitudes and experiences of people who use cannabis and drive implications for drugs and driving legislation in Victoria, Australia. Drug, educationprev. policy, 8(4), 307-313. 

---