Hi,

In any war, you must know your enemy; I don't believe most opponents of cannabis prohibition do.

Cannabis was criminalised for (from the point of view of industry and it's "owners") very logical reasons.

1) The processing of cannabis into a versatile fibre, especially using modern methods, would have prevented a large number of industries, e.g. wood pulp, ever taking off. Randolph Hearst and his cronies realised this early on.

) More importantly, and scarier; cannabis was prohibited for the same reason that liquor was in 20's America; this was NOT for reasons of right-wing patrician morality, it was NOT in fact for any of the reasons popularly imagined and found in most historical analysis.

The aim of alcohol prohibition was to re-direct the necessary funds to establish a parallel enforcement agency to the "Feds" - the FBI. We came to know this organisation as the Mafia - generically, organised crime. It's power, it's money originated entirely from alcohol bootlegging. This organisation has been depended on it ever since to carry out such things (in the pursuit of their own interests) as:

- The terrorisation of anti-establishment groups such as labour unions

- The killing of anti-establishment (read left-wing or even liberal) political activists, (nothing they hated more than a "commy" or "pinko").

- and of course, drug trafficking

Cannabis prohibition is simply a matter of ensuring the huge cash flow within the "black economies" of the Western world. In the US, illegal drug trafficking and dealing, particularly heroin and cocaine, is estimated to be the biggest "industry" in existence - some estimates of it's turnover run into TRILLIONS of dollars annually. This is "skimmed" by covert groups within the CIA, NSC et al to finance such despicable operations as the Nicaraguan "Contra" terrorist campaign. Money for these types of activities could hardly be raised by asking Congress for it.

Surely cannabis is only one of the less important commodities in the black market? In fact, no. The demand for "A" class narcotics is maintained by the induction of as many people, as young as possible, into "drug culture". Anyone who decides they are going to use cannabis will then, as a matter of course, is able to acquire most other illegal substances. Were it legalised unilaterally in the UK for example, I believe we would then see a steady decline the demand for destructive narcotics like heroin.

The irony is that many well-meaning anti-cannabis lobbyists maintain that it is the first step to hard drug use, and they're right, but not for the reasons they believe.

To get back to my original contention, that pro-cannabis campaigners do not know their enemy. If you accept the above, you will realise that the real opponents of legalisation are not politicians, or the conservative public, but extremely powerful vested interests who have tools at their disposal to control the opinions of the former, and the public in general. I, for one, am pessimistic about any change in legislation in the foreseeable future.

Regards,

Rainer Scott