Was marijuana ever legal in India


When and why was cannabis banned?

One of the first questions that arises in the discussion about cannabis legalization is why cannabis was banned in the first place. The common opinion against existing laws is based on the view that laws already have good reasons and that their existence is based on scientific and economic knowledge. The history of international drug law, especially cannabis law, shows that this view can sometimes be quite wrong.

The following text will tell you the history of the cannabis ban, you will find the sources in the text itself, otherwise at the end of this page. Although it is a relatively long text, we strongly recommend reading it, as it clearly shows the background to the cannabis ban.

Attention: Parts of the following text have been taken over literally from existing texts and works! Above all, Gerrit Wiebe's work in the sociology department "Why did cannabis have to be banned? - The role of the USA and the UN" at the University of Hamburg served as the main model.


The political handling of drugs is a hot topic, the political handling of cannabis in particular is particularly hot. Explosive because the "cannabis problem" has only existed for politics since the beginning of the 20th century. Before that, this policy area simply did not exist, as there was nothing problematic or dangerous in dealing with cannabis. Quite the opposite. What we understand by "drugs" today were to a large extent originally widespread medicaments or stimulants, in the case of cannabis also a useful plant from which countless things were made and which in some countries had been smoked for hundreds of years . Excessive drug use has certainly always existed, but it did not play a role up to the point in time when there was an international understanding that, for whatever reason, certain drugs should be banned. This restrictive way of dealing with drugs per se, and the prohibition of cannabis in particular, are highly controversial due to the increasing number of users despite high penalties. [...]

The question of why cannabis had to be banned inevitably arises when dealing with this complex, because the contradictions and irrationalities, as well as the inefficiency of politics, are evident.

If you take a closer look at the emergence of the global cannabis ban, it is clear that the United States played an important, if not decisive, role in its enforcement and implementation. Although the applications from Egypt and Turkey ensured that cannabis was placed under drug control at the third opium conference in Geneva in 1925 [1], it was above all the driving commitment of the "US Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs" (FBNDD ) that shaped the worldwide reputation of cannabis through its campaigns and laws up to the bodies of the United Nations. The ban on cannabis was not just about a drug; economic interests, racism and personal ambition also played an important role. The fact that cannabis was originally an economically important crop, including the emerging one
The synthetic fiber industry stood in the way as a competitor at the beginning of the century is often overlooked or deliberately ignored.

Geneva: Worldwide control measures for cannabis are introduced at the second international opium conference, although 18 of the 19 participating countries have no problems with cannabis to report; only Portugal reports that in its colony Angola there have been cases of black insubordination after the consumption of hemp. The close final vote to the disadvantage of hemp is determined by solid economic interests; Egypt, for example, threatens the Germans to impose import restrictions for cocaine (Merck) and heroin (Bayer) in the event of a cannabis-friendly voting behavior.

from 1925

The anti-marijuana lobby in the US is mobilizing: crimes committed in the southern border states are attributed to marijuana use. For every criminal caught who has smoked weed at some point (which was a fairly common fashion), drug use is immediately portrayed as the cause of the crime.

1931 Despite initial doubts about the feasibility, Anslinger starts his demonization campaign against marijuana and its consumers with a special budget (100,000 dollars - and that at the low point of the economic crisis!). In addition to poster campaigns and the distribution of fake horror press releases, "expert reports" are also commissioned. The first is being constructed for $ 2,000 by prison doctor A.E. Fossier. Excerpt: "The ruling race and the most enlightened countries are alcoholic, while the countries and nations that have succumbed to hemp and opium (...) have perished both mentally and physically"

There is not ONE reason, but a combination of several reasons why cannabis is on a similar level to heroin in the legal texts of almost all countries. Some of these reasons are clearly reflected in behavior and flimsy arguments
of the responsible politicians in the USA in the 1930s. Why yourself Harry Anslinger, who headed and shaped the FBNDD for almost 30 years, focused on the fight against cannabis, cannot be said exactly, but the fact is that today's
Cannabis laws go back in large part to his work.

Did hemp have to be "eliminated" as a competitor for the emerging synthetic fiber, paper and pharmaceutical industries?

The use of cannabis has been known in the USA since the colonization in the 17th century and hemp was cultivated as a useful plant for at least as long. Even George Washington did this in 1765, ostensibly to treat his toothache. Like opium or heroin, cannabis was initially socially accepted as a medicine and was widely used [2] before it was gradually banned and thus driven out of this large economic sector. In American economic history there are facts that suggest that, despite the best conditions and prognoses, hemp could not and should not provide for the recovery of American agriculture, which was stricken by the years of the Depression at the beginning of the century, because the extracts of the plant had the reputation of being dangerous "Killer drug" was imposed, and thus as a useful plant out of consideration. Large and influential industrial companies such as the chemical corporation DuPont had a great interest in this ban and campaigned directly and indirectly for a ban on the plant. After the strong agricultural importance of its cultivation for the production of fibers, oils, paper, paints, etc. due to a lack of technical possibilities for mass production in the course of the industrial revolution, hemp became a central role in America at the beginning of the twentieth century
Agriculture prophesies.


The American Department of Agriculture publishes a bulletin on "Hemp dwarf material for making paper" for the attention of "people interested in economical papermaking, especially print and book manufacturers". The Bulletin (No. 404) states, among other things, that thanks to modern fiber extraction technology, the same amount of paper can be made from one hectare of hemp as from 4.1 hectares of forest (and - in contrast to wood management - this is still year after year).

In retrospect, it can be assumed that this bulletin was one of the main reasons that a financially strong trio, consisting of Randolph Hearst, the company "Du Pont", and Andrew Mellon began to take an interest in the herb and, a few years later, launched a massive and relentless campaign against it Hemp led.

Hearst was the owner of what was then the largest "Paper Manufacturing Company", owner of forest and paper mills, and a newspaper magnate. The chemical giant Du Pont is not only competed by hemp in the textile fiber sector, but is also a supplier of sulfides for paper production from wood (and is therefore in a flourishing business relationship with Hearst) The banker Mellon, the second richest man in the USA, finance minister and main financier of the Du Pont company is by the way Uncle of the wife of a certain Harry Anslinger.

The US Department of Agriculture wrote in its Bulletin No. 404 that the development of a peeling and harvesting machine would restore hemp "to its importance as the largest agricultural industry" [3]. In 1938 this machine was presented in specialist magazines such as Popular mechanics and Mechanical engineering. The economic prognoses for the possibilities for mass cultivation of hemp that now emerged looked extremely favorable, since fiber hemp can be used in a variety of ways and the cultivation is very effective. Research has been carried out successfully on behalf of the US Department of Agriculture in the pulp processing and energy generation sectors. Through this technical development, the great wood, paper, and
Newspaper companies such as Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division or Kimberly Clark suddenly have serious competition, because paper made from hemp, which until 1883 still had approx. 80% market share, is of higher quality and would be due to technical progress
much cheaper to manufacture. The paper industry, which is bound to the forest, was threatened with great losses. During this time, the chemical and explosives manufacturer Du Pont patented both its process for the production of synthetic fibers and plastic from oil, as well as the sulphate / sulphite process for paper production from wood pulp. "Plastics are used in the manufacture of a variety of products that were historically made from natural materials," [4] wrote Lammont DuPont in Popular Mechanics in 1939. These products are, for example, dynamite and TNT, in this sector Du Pont has held a monopoly on the US market since the beginning of the 20th century through the acquisition of smaller explosives manufacturers. In 1902, DuPont controlled around two thirds of industrial explosives production and covered 40% of the Allies' ammunition needs in World War I. The process of making explosives from cellulose is similar to making synthetic fibers and plastics from cellulose, and so far TNT and dynamite have been made from hemp plants [5]. By dominating the explosives market and leading position in synthetic fiber research, there was an opportunity for further monopoly, because with the help of the patents DuPont could now control the production of synthetic fibers independently of suppliers and small farmers. It is precisely in these areas that hemp is a high-quality competitor for plastics. So it was absolutely in the interest of the synthetic fiber industry that hemp was banned.
Andrew Mellon, a member of the second wealthiest banking and entrepreneurial family in America after DuPont at the time, was DuPont's most important financier through the "Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh", at that time the sixth largest bank in the USA. In his function as finance minister in President Herbert Hoover's cabinet, he appointed his niece's future husband, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the reorganized state drug and drug agency FBNDD.

Whether this entanglement is pure coincidence or not, it resulted in massive government action against cannabis from now on, as was also addressed in the DuPont Shareholders' Report of 1937: "We are calling for radical cuts in government tax legislation. You could be turned into a tool to accelerate the uptake of new ideas of industrial and social reconstruction "[6]. These "new ideas of industrial reconstruction" meant the synthetic fibers and fabrics already mentioned. DuPont's demands were put into practice, and on April 14, 1937, Herman Oliphant, chief advisor to the Treasury Department, introduced a draft for a marijuana tax law that included a trade tax for dealers and an acquisition tax for the purchase of cannabis. The marijuana trade was now taxed at $ 1 an ounce, or $ 100 if the trader was not registered. Penalties for non-compliance ranged from a fine of $ 2,000 to five years in prison. This tax drove small farms out of the hemp cultivation business, which up until now had made up a large part of total fiber hemp production. Doctors, too, increasingly refrained from prescribing cannabis because of the complicated bookkeeping required, paving the way for new, synthetic drugs that cannot be grown in every garden.
Oliphant introduced the bill directly to the budget committee of Congress, thus bypassing other relevant committees such as those on food and drugs, agriculture, textiles and commerce. The Budgets Committee dealt with
Bills directly in plenary without having to be debated in other committees beforehand. When the law was then before the plenary session of Congress for discussion and voting, the only question from the audience was whether the American
Medical Association (AMA) was consulted. This was confirmed by MP Vinson. He claimed, "Dr. Wharton (mistaken pronunciation for Woodward) and the AMA are entirely in agreement with us" [7]. So the law was passed and resulted in a ban on cannabis that continues to this day. The correspondence of economic interests shown with the "marijuana tax act" that emerged at the same time could be of a coincidental nature. It is possible that synthetic fibers, etc. would also have prevailed with hemp as competitors. However, it is astonishing that the cultivation of cannabis, although originally only a few of the more than 100 different species produced the "dangerous" THC, was outlawed in principle. B. in the Federal Republic of its cultivation was only permitted again with restrictions in February 1996. In addition, the coming into being of the law and the flimsy ones appear
The reasons and arguments for this are very dubious. These arguments will be examined in more detail in the following section.

What arguments were there for and against the "marijuana tax act"?

The "Marihuana tax act" was drafted between 1935 and 1937 in closed meetings of the Ministry of Finance. In the run-up, the FBNDD started a true crusade against cannabis, and books like "Assassin of youth" or films like
distributed the "Reefer Madness" commissioned by Anslinger, which contained true horror scenarios and were intended as a warning of death and spoilage from marijuana. When the draft was presented and debated by Herman Oliphant, there was none
scientific evidence brought against cannabis, just a series of prejudices, largely extracted from the press and police reports.

Examples of such "press and police reports":

Taken from: New York Times, July 6, 1927

A widow and her four children went crazy after eating a marijuana plant, according to doctors, who say there is no hope of saving the children's lives and that the mother is crazy for life will be. The mother had no money to buy other food for the children, who were between three and fifteen years old; so she gathered some herbs and some vegetables that grew in her garden to make her supper. Two hours after the mother and children ate the plants, they had a seizure. Neighbors, hearing outbursts of crazy laughter, found the whole family insane. An investigation found that the numbing marijuana grew in the vegetable garden.
MR. ANSLINGER: I have another letter from the prosecutor at a place in New Jersey.

The Interstate Commission on Crime
March 18, 1937
Charles Black, Washington, DC

My Dear Mr. Black:

That I fully appreciate the need for action, you may judge from the fact that last January I tried a murder case for several days, of a particularly brutal character in which one colored young man killed another, literally smashing his face and head to a pulp , as the enclosed photograph demonstrates. One of the defenses was that the defendant's intellect was so prostrated from his smoking marihuana cigarettes that he did not know what he was doing. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a long term of years. I am convinced that marihuana had been indulged in, that the smoking had occurred, and the brutality of the murder was accounted for by the narcotic, though the defendant's intellect had not been totally prostrate, so the verdict was legally correct. It seems to me that this instance might be of value to you in your campaign.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Hartshorne

MR. ANSLINGER: In another place in Ohio, a young man shot the hotel clerk while trying to hold him up. His defense was that he was under the influence of marihuana. [...]

Taken from: Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Finance United States Senate, Seventy-Fifth Congress, First Session on H.R. 6906 - July 12, 1937 Statement of H. J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, Bureau of Narcotics of the Treasury Department

In the hearing of the 75th Congress before the Tax Committee of the House of Representatives on April 27. until 4.5. 1937 by Treasury Department Drugs Officer Harry Anslinger and Clinton Hester (another Treasury Department representative) et al. the following arguments in favor of the Tax Act [8]:

· Marijuana is mankind's most violent drug.
· The effect is fatal.
Opium has good properties like Dr. Jekyll and bad ones like Mr. Hyde. The new drug is completely like the monster Hyde, it does immeasurable damage.
· It affects individuals differently. Some completely lose track of time or values. You have a feeling of physical strength and strength. Others become addicted ... and can even commit crimes in this state. Some laugh uncontrollably. [...]

Literally it said in English:

MR. ANSLINGER: In medical schools, the physician-to-be is taught that without opium he would be like a one-armed man. That is true, because you cannot get along without opium. But here we have drug that is not like opium. Opium has all of the good of Dr. Jekyll and all the evil of Mr. Hyde. This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured.

MR. ANSLINGER: It affects different individuals in different ways. Some individuals have a complete loss of sense of time or a sense of value. They lose their sense of place. That have an increased feeling of physical strength and power.

Some people will fly into a delirious rage, and they are temporarily irresponsible and may commit violent crimes. Other people will laugh uncontrollably. It is impossible to say what the effect will be on any individual. Those research men who have tried it have always been under control. They always have insisted upon that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Is it used by the criminal class?

MR. ANSLINGER: Yes, it is. It is dangerous to the mind and body, and particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of the inhibitions. [...]

Nevertheless, it is one of the dangerous drugs that should be known only to be shunned - an intoxicant with the most vicious propensities.

taken from: Hearing on H.R. 6906, July 12, 1937 Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Finance United States Senate, Seventy-Fifth Congress, First Session on HR6906- July 12, 1937: STATEMENT OF HJ ANSLINGER, COMMISSIONER OF NARCOTICS, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Despite the fact that medical men and scientists have disagreed upon the properties of marihuana, and some are inclined to minimize the harmfulness of this drug, the records offer ample evidence that it has a disastrous effect upon many of its users. Recently we have received many reports showing the crimes of violence committed by persons while under the influence of marijuana. [...] The deleterious, even vicious, qualities of the drug render it highly dangerous to the mind and body upon which it operates to destroy the will, cause one to lose the power of connected thought, producing imaginary delectable situations and gradually weakening the physical powers. Its use frequently leads to insanity.


These unfounded, unproven, and populist claims apparently convinced Congress, although the hearings also included invited experts such as doctor and lawyer Dr. William C. Woodward as Vice President of the American Medical Association, who served during the two-year deliberations on the law Not was consulted, vehemently opposed the law. Woodward pointed out, inter alia. clearly on the obfuscation of the facts by using the Mexican slang word "marijuana" instead of the scientific term "cannabis".

USA: The Federal Bureau of Narcotics is founded as an offshoot of the Treasury (Congress resolution of July 1, 1930). Harry J. Anslinger is named interim boss (by his uncle, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon). At Mellon's behest, the office supports the smear campaigns launched by the Hearst press against marijuana consumers. The Anslinger smear campaign takes on more and more devastating forms over the years. The population is suggested that marijuana is a drug that leads to madness and death, with which "negroes, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and jazz musicians" wanted to poison the country and seduce white women. The racist campaign against the unloved minorities is also showing noticeable success. By constant use of the southern terminology ("marijuana") and the avoidance of the well-known, harmless associations linked terms such as hemp and cannabis, it is soon suggested that this is a new, highly dangerous drug.

He also criticized the press, which also distracted people from the industrial substance and remedy through the constant use of the word "marijuana". This was an important reference, because in order to substantiate such and other theses such as the fact that around 50 percent of all serious crimes can be traced back to foreigners who use marijuana, Anslinger mainly cited newspaper reports from his so-called "blood file". As in later years, cannabis was functionalized to be specific
To discredit social groups and to be able to take action against them. In the 50s, 60s and 70s it was rebellious youth cultures that did not fit into the image of the "American way of life" against which the marijuana laws were used
would have. In the 20s and 30s it was the "pot smoking Mexicans" and colored jazz musicians who invaded the American job market against whom people tried to defend themselves with bad prejudices. A relationship between crime, Mexicans, or blacks, and cannabis was permanently established and promoted by the American tabloids.
The newspaper chain of the aforementioned newspaper mogul Randolph Hearst, who had a deeper interest in it, stood out in particular. It was above all his nationwide newspaper chain that provided Anslinger's "evidence". She led
ran a full-scale anti-cannabis smear campaign between 1916 and 1937, but even newspapers like the New York Times frequently reported rape and car accidents related to marijuana during this period.

Except for these horror reports, which Anslinger cited as arguments in response to critical questions, the anti-cannabis policy could not be justified. Years later, the facts of the reports from this "blood file" Anslinger, which he left with the Cleveland library together with all his documents, were scientifically evaluated, and none the reports were believed to be genuine [9].

In addition to the medical profession, there were other voices against the law, for example from the direction of the hemp fiber, lubricating oil, hemp seed and dye industries, in whose eyes it made no sense to proceed against the processing and production of this plant with such a rigid tax. But they had no chance against the vehemence with which the FBNDD pushed the law through and the fact that cannabis had already experienced international ostracism. Apart from that, there wasn't any scientific at that time
Confirmed knowledge about the consequences of cannabis use that could have justified the marijuana tax. Several studies of this time such as the report of the "Indian Hemp Drugs Commission" (India Hemp Drugs Commisiion Report / 1893/94) or the study of the "Siler Commission" could not find any harm in smoking cannabis [10] and even the deputy head the American health authority Walter Treadway described marijuana as "habit-forming just like sugar and coffee" before the cannabis investigation committee of the League of Nations in 1937 [11].

Anslinger and the consequences of his politics

Certainly it is wrong to hold a single person responsible for the prohibition of cannabis, because this kind of politics reflects in a way the spirit of that time. However, the "marijuana tax act" and the corresponding "public relations" of the
FBNDD, for which Harry Anslinger campaigned like no other with full passion, far-reaching consequences. Anslinger stayed at the head of the FBNDD for almost 30 years and, with his dubious cannabis policy, established a drug bureaucracy that was about to end after the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933. Since he could not put his "dubious" arguments against cannabis forever,
His views went through some obscure twists over the years: while in 1937 he maintained that marijuana was violent, in 1948 he was of the opinion that communists could use marijuana to weaken American morale, since it had almost pacifist effects [12]. In 1951 he justified the "Boggs-act" for uniform punishment throughout America and
further establishment of the cannabis ban with the thesis that cannabis inevitably leads to the consumption of harder drugs. A thesis that is still in many minds today and is repeatedly put forward against cannabis. Anslinger had well-founded fear of contradicting findings, which is why he hindered any research in the cannabis field for years. In New York it was
carried out a six-year study of cannabis consumption in certain parts of the city. Named after Mayor LaGuardia at the time, this study, conducted without Anslinger's approval, disproved Anslinger's claim that marijuana was
make violent. Anslinger then declared that the doctors responsible would end up in prison if they ever again carried out experiments with or research work on marijuana without his personal permission [13].

Despite these contradictions and irrationalities, Congress voted in favor of maintaining the marijuana laws, even if hemp experienced a brief rebirth during World War II due to the scarcity of raw materials. The American Department of Agriculture called on farmers to grow fiber hemp under the motto "Hemp for victory". In these tough times, the "really bad" character of cannabis was benevolently looked over. After the war, however, Anslinger managed to continue and even intensify the fight against cannabis. Ever tougher laws like the "Narcotic control act" were made
which in some cases even provided for the death penalty. The strong influence of the USA as the strongest donor of the United Nations finally led to the fact that the hard American line of the FBNDD prevailed in the international community. Harry Anslinger was chairman of the UN Drugs Commission in 1947. In this function he achieved, for example, that the World Health Organization (WHO) decided in 1954 that hemp and its derivatives had no (!) Therapeutic value [14]. In 1961 cannabis was equated with the "single convention of narcotic drugs" morphine and similar substances, thus creating facts that are very difficult to undo, even if there were countries that wanted to do so. Because what is once forbidden has the appearance of crime forever. Although the American legal situation relaxed slightly after Anslinger's resignation in 1962, it was decided not to punish every first-time user immediately, but the prohibition of cannabis has "perpetuated" despite the current easing. A quote from Harry Anslinger: "Who is still in the US with marijuana
wants to legalize, violates international conventions. Now nobody can come to me more domestically. We have also been able to enforce our position internationally, which is a confirmation of the reputation of the USA "[15].

The example of early American cannabis policy shows how strongly drug policy is emotionalized and characterized by ignorance. At first sight it seems as if it is about protecting society, but in the background are completely different interests and interest groups. So the cannabis ban developed in a downright grotesque way in its beginnings. Building on the Singel Convention of 1961, further international agreements were decided over the years which (like the Single Convention) are also valid in Austria.

You can find more information on the subject at the following Internet addresses:


The two above addresses are the aforementioned homework by Gerrit Wiebe (University of Hamburg). As I said, the first part of this work can also be found on this page, the second part then goes detailed on the UN drug legislation and its supervisory bodies or their meaning and purpose. Worth reading!

The campaigns by Anslinger, Munch and Nahas - chronological listing of all important facts worth reading!

German text from the magazine "HANF!" about UN drug control

Article by Phillip O. Coffin on current developments in UN drug control

Text about the WHO's attempt to hold back a study on cannabis

German text by Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen on the hazard potential of cannabis, which also takes into account the above-mentioned WHO study

Reading list

GÜNTHER AMENDT: The great white bluff, Hamburg 1987.

HANS-GEORG BEHR: There is talk of hemp, culture and politics of a drug, Reinbek 1987.

HANS-GEORG BEHR: There is talk of hemp, culture and politics of a drug, Frankfurt 1993.

WILHELM BURIAN / IRMGARD EISENBACH-STANGL (HG.): Hashish: Prohibition or Legalization, Causes and Consequences of the Cannabis Ban, Weinheim 1982.

S.K. CHATTERJEE: Legal Aspects of international drug control, La Hague 1981.

COMMISSION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS (Ed.): CND - What it is, what it does.

RALPH COSACK / ROBERTO WENZEL: Das Hanf-Tage-Buch, Hamburg 1995.

MATHEA FALCO: The making of a drug-free America, New York 1995.

JACK HERER: The rediscovery of the useful plant hemp, Frankfurt 1993.

GUSTAV HUG-BEELI: Handbook of drug policy, facts, opinions, analyzes, proposed solutions, Bern 1995.

JAMES A. INCIARDI: The war on drugs, Palo Alto 1986.

JAMES A. INCIARDI: Handbook of drug control in the united states, Westport 1990.

PEGGY MANN: Marihuana alert, Library of congress 1985.

RONALD RIPPCHEN: Right to Rush, Löhrbach 1995.

WOLFGANG SCHNEIDER: Risk of cannabis ?, Berlin 1995.

UNITED NATIONS (HG.): Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Document V.95-51555, Vienna 1995.

UNITED NATIONS (HG.): Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1995, Document V.95-59753, Vienna / New York 1996.

UNITED NATIONS (Ed.): The United Nations and Drug abuse control, New York 1989.

UNITED NATIONS (HG.): Declaration of the international conference on drug abus and illicit trafficking and comprehensive multidisciplinary outline of futer activities in drug abuse control, New York 1988.

UNITED NATIONS (HG.): International Narcotics Control Board, V.96-80141, Vienna 1996.


[1] see Schneider, 1995, 29
[2] Inciardi, 1990, 29
[3] Herer, 1993, 46
[4] Herer, 1993, 58
[5] see Herer, 1993, 60
[6] Herer, 1993, 59
[7] Herer, 1993, 65
[8] see Behr, 1993, 163
[9] see Herer, 1993, 67
[10] see Behr, 1993, 240
[11] Herer, 1993, 55
[12] Herer, 1993, 70
[13] Inciardi, 1990, 38
[14] Rippchen, 1995, page 77
[15] Rippchen, 1995, page 78