Cannabis: God's Holy Sacrament or the Devil's Lettuce?
 |
| "For it was neither herb, nor mollifying plaister, that restored them to health; but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things." Holy Bible, 1611 KJV, Wisdom of Solomon 16:12. |
Darwin's "Abominable Mystery"
The ongoing challenge to Darwinian evolution posed by the abrupt appearance of flowering plants (angiosperms) in the fossil record, is known as Darwin's "abominable mystery". Charles Darwin coined the phrase "abominable mystery" in a letter to Joseph Hooker in 1879, referring to the sudden appearance and rapid diversification of flowering plants in the fossil record, which he found puzzling and difficult to explain within his theory of evolution.¹ A 2024 study by Zuntini et al. in Nature, confirms a rapid diversification of angiosperms during the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous period, with over 80% of modern angiosperm orders emerging in this period abruptly.² This sudden burst, without clear precursors, contradicts Darwin's expectation of gradual evolution, as he believed "nature does not make jumps."³ The last 160 years of paleobotanical research has not closed this gap but made it more pronounced, suggesting it reflects a real discontinuity in nature rather than just unpreserved fossils (known as the artifact hypothesis). This rapid emergence of biological novelty aligns better with intelligent design than unguided, gradual evolutionary processes.⁴
The earliest fossil evidence of the Cannabis genus, based on pollen records, dates to approximately 19.6 million years ago during the early Miocene epoch of the Neogene period. These fossils were found in northwestern China, near the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Additionally, studies suggest that Cannabis diverged from its sister genus Humulus (hops) around 27.8 million years ago in the mid-Oligocene epoch of the Paleogene period, with the northeastern Tibetan Plateau, near Qinghai Lake, as the likely origin. The presence of Artemisia pollen from 28 million years ago supports this timeline, indicating similar steppe environments where Cannabis thrived.⁵
This suggests that the mind of God impressed functionally specified information into matter to create over 80% of modern plant orders approximately 150 million years ago. Over time, through mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, cross pollination, co-evolution and climate change, diversification of plant life occurred gradually.⁶
 |
| "Beer Education: Dank Factor," Lagunitas Brewing Company, www.lagunitas.com/story/beereducation-dankfactor/. Accessed 7 May 2025. |
According to the current scientific consensus, the order Rosales, which includes roses, apples, strawberries, plums, peaches, almonds, pears, etc., likely originated in the Cretaceous period with the family Cannabaceae (climbing plants with petalless flowers) diverging in the Paleogene period as climates warmed and diversified post-Cretaceous extinction (~66 million years ago).⁷ The divergence of cannabis and hops roughly 27.8 million years ago is attributed to natural processes (geographic isolation due to Tibetan Plateau uplift and selection for chemical defenses). Humulus adapted to forested or mixed habitats, developing climbing vines and bitter compounds, while Cannabis evolved in open steppes, with cannabinoids for UV protection or herbivore defense.⁸
Cannabis and beer therefore share botanical connections through their mutual reliance on terpenes, aromatic compounds found in both cannabis (Cannabis sativa) and hops (Humulus lupulus), which are closely related plants in the Cannabaceae family. Terpenes like myrcene, limonene, and pinene contribute to the distinctive flavors and aromas in both. Hops, used in beer, and cannabis share similar organoleptic qualities. Both hops and cannabis have a resinous part that appears to be of similar terpene factories, but where the glands in cannabis make cannabinoids, hops make alpha and beta acids.
 |
| Cohen, K.M., Finney, S.C., Gibbard, P.L. & Fan, J.-X. (2013; updated) The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart. Episodes 36: 199–204. |
Cannabis domestication began about 12,000 years ago in northwest China, driven by its multipurpose value (fiber, food and medicine). Humans spread it globally creating landraces with minimal domestication until about 4,000 years ago, when hemp and drug strains diverged through selective breeding for fiber or THC. Genetic studies confirm East Asian origins, with feral Chinese plants as the closest ancestral relatives.¹⁰
From East Asia, cannabis spread via human migration and trade, eastward, to Korea, Japan and South Asia about 3,000 years ago for food, fiber and rituals. Westward, to the Middle East, Eastern Europe and India with evidence of cultivation in Bulgaria about 7,000–5,000 years ago, and widespread European use by 4,500–2,300 years ago. Later, humans carried cannabis to Africa (about 2,000–3,000 years ago) and the Americas (about 500 years ago).¹¹
Cannabis pollen in Egyptian mummies (e.g., Ramses II, ~1200 BCE) suggests its presence in North Africa, likely imported via trade with the Levant or India. Ceramic smoking pipes with cannabis residues in Ethiopia and Central Africa, dated to ~1,300–1600 CE, indicate psychoactive use. This suggests cannabis was established in East Africa by the late first millennium of the Common Era.¹²
Cannabis was used in Africa for medicinal, ritual and recreational purposes. For example, in Ethiopia, it was known as "t'ef" and used in traditional medicine or rituals, while Bantu speaking groups in Central/Southern Africa used it in spiritual practices (e.g., as dagga).¹³
The Spanish and Portuguese introduced hemp to South America (e.g., Brazil, Chile) in the late 1500s for fiber (ropes, sails) in colonial navies. Historical records show hemp cultivation in Brazil by 1549. Enslaved Africans, familiar with cannabis from West/Central Africa, brought seeds and knowledge of psychoactive use to the Caribbean and South America by the 1600s, contributing to drug-type (high-THC cannabis) cultivation. Hemp was introduced to North America by the 1600s (e.g., Jamestown, Virginia in 1611) for fiber, with drug-type cannabis arriving later via African and Caribbean influences.¹⁴
The United States Pharmacopeia
The United States Pharmacopeia (USP) is a nonprofit organization that sets standards for the identity, strength, quality, and purity of medicines, dietary supplements, and food ingredients. Established in 1820, it publishes the United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary (USP-NF), a compendium of guidelines used by manufacturers, regulators, and healthcare professionals to ensure the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and related products in the U.S.¹⁵
The United States Pharmacopeia does not directly create or enforce drug laws in the USA, as that authority lies with government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Congress. However, the USP indirectly influences drug laws and regulations by setting standards for the identity, strength, quality, and purity of medicines, which are often incorporated into federal and state regulations.¹⁶
For drugs like cannabis derivatives (e.g., CBD, Δ8-THC, Δ9-THC), the USP did develop monographs for cannabinoid extracts in 2019 to standardize quality, but it does not influence their legal status under the Controlled Substances Act, which is determined by the DEA and Congress. For example, cannabis remains a Schedule I substance federally in the U.S., despite USP standards for certain cannabis-derived products.¹⁷
The last time cannabis or its derivatives were featured in the United States Pharmacopeia before 2019 was in the 12th edition of 1942, when it was officially removed due to regulatory pressures and increasing federal restrictions following the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Cannabis had been included in the USP since 1851 (3rd edition) under names like Extractum Cannabis or Tincture of Cannabis, with standards for its medical use, but its removal in 1942 marked the end of its recognition in the USP until renewed interest in the 21st century.¹⁸
However, on October 31, 1947, Emperor Haile Selassie decreed that the latest revised edition of the United States Pharmacopeia, which at the time was the 13th edition of 1947, was the official pharmacopeia of the Empire of Ethiopia.¹⁹ Interestingly, the 13th edition of 1947 was the first USP edition since 1851 that did not include cannabis.
 |
The reason why this decree is still significant and remains relevant to this day is because Articles 58 and 59(1) of the 1964 Pharmacy Regulations of Ethiopia prohibit the use of any substance not authorized in the latest revised United States Pharmacopeia or the International Pharmacopeia.²⁰ Articles 32 and 52 of the 1964 Pharmacy Regulations incorporated the use of the International Pharmacopeia most likely for the purposes of quality standardization of medications imported from countries other than the U.S. as according to Article 62.²¹
In 2019, over-the-counter cannabinoid extracts were included in the 43rd edition of the United States Pharmacopeia. Used in analytical procedures to verify the identity and determine the constituents of product samples, the following are current USP Reference Standards related to cannabis for medical use:
USP Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol 1 mL (1 mg/mL) [Catalog # 1651621] [CAS 1972-08-3]
USP Exo-Tetrahydrocannabinol 1 mL [Catalog # 1090014] [CAS 27179-28-8]
USP Cannabinoid Acids Mixture 1 mL (in acetonitrile and triethylamine with stabilizer) [Catalog # 1089172]
0.25 mg of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) [CAS 23978-85-0]
0.25 mg of cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) [CAS 1244- 58-2]
0.050 mg of tetrahydrocannabivarinic acid (THCVA) [CAS 39986-26-0]
0.025 mg of cannabidivarinic acid (CBDVA) [CAS 31932-13-5]
0.025 mg of cannabigerolic acid (CBGA) [CAS 25555-57-1]
USP Cannabinoids Mixture 1 mL (in methanol) [Catalog # 1089183]
0.075 mg of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) [CAS 1972-08-3]
0.025 mg of Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC) [CAS 5957-75-5]
0.050 mg of cannabidiol (CBD) [CAS 13956-29-1]
0.025 mg of cannabinol (CBN) [CAS 521-35-7]
0.025 mg of cannabichromene (CBC) [CAS 20675-51-8]
0.025 mg of cannabigerol (CBG) [CAS 25654-31- 3]
0.025 mg of tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) [CAS 31262-37-0]
0.025 mg of cannabidivarin (CBDV) [CAS 24274- 48-4]
USP Cannabidiol Solution 1 mL (1 mg/mL) [Catalog #1089161] [CAS 13956-29-1]
USP Cannabidiol 25 mg [Catalog #1089149] [CAS 13956-29-1]²²
To be clear, this does not include the flowering tops of cannabis, also known as "inflorescence," but rather the derivatives of cannabis only, specifically: CBD, Δ8-THC, Δ9-THC, THCA, THCVA, THCV, CBDA, CBDVA, CBGA, CBN, CBC, CBG and CBDV. Since these derivatives were added to the USP in 2019 they are technically authorized for use without a prescription according to His Imperial Majesty's laws which anticipated the evolving nature and scientific advancement of medicine in a rather stunningly prudent manner.
Cannabis Legislation in Ethiopia
The first instance of cannabis ever being mentioned in an Ethiopian legal document was when Emperor Haile Selassie proclaimed cannabis to be a dangerous drug on September 13, 1942.²³ Fifteen years later, Article 510 of the 1957 Penal Code outlawed cannabis entirely:
Art. 510. — Production, Making or Distribution of Poisonous or Narcotic Substances.
(1) Whosoever, without lawful authority, produces or makes, transforms, imports, exports or transports, acquires or receives, stores, offers for sale or distributes, or procures for another, poisons, drugs or narcotic substances, is punishable with simple imprisonment for not less than three months, and with fine not exceeding twenty thousand dollars.
(2) The same punishment may be inflicted upon anyone who knowingly places at the disposal of another, even privately, premises where the taking of drugs or narcotic substances is practised.
(3) The court may pass sentence of rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years and impose a fine not exceeding thirty thousand dollars:
(a) where the offence is committed by a band or association organized for this traffic, or by a person who makes a profession of such felonious activities; or
(b) where such forbidden toxic substance or access to the premises is furnished knowingly, for gain or for an improper motive, to an infant or young person, a mental defective or a drug addict.²⁴
Article 786 issued further restrictions:
Art. 786. — Control of Toxic Substances and Drugs.
Whosoever, apart from the cases punishable under the Penal Code (Art.510):
(a) manufacturers or prepares, sells, offers for sale, delivers or gives without lawful permission or an express medical prescription, where such are required, substances or products which are narcotic, toxic, poisonous, noxious or dangerous for the health; or
(b) in defiance of rules prescribed by law or the rules dictated by common prudence willfully sells, offers for sale or delivers such substances or products, even when their delivery is not expressly prohibited without an authorization, to persons who are irresponsible, to infants or young persons, sick persons or individuals for whom they are manifestly dangerous or unsuitable; or
(c) keeps or handles such substances or products without taking the precaution required by official or professional regulations, custom or the dictates of common prudence, in particular when there is a risk of mistake or confusion; or
(d) fails to warn other persons of the danger of poisoning or intoxication known to him, when it is his duty and he is able to do so, is punishable with fine or arrest.²⁵
The authoritative law dictionary used in Ethiopia's Supreme Imperial Court in conjunction with the 1957 Penal Code was the Fourth edition of Black's Law Dictionary of 1951.²⁶ This dictionary defined "drug" as the following:
DRUG. The general name of substances used in medicine; any substance, vegetable, animal, or mineral, used in the composition or preparation of medicines; any substance used as a medicine. Carroll Perfumers v. State, Ind., 7 N.E.2d 970, 972; Hammond v. State, 173 Ark. 674, 293 S.W. 714, 717. The term is also applied to materials used in dyeing and in chemistry. See, generally, Collins v. Banking Co., 79 N.C. 281, 28 Am.Rep. 322; Insurance Co. v. Flemming, 65 Ark. 54, 44 S.W. 464, 39 L.R.A. 789, 67 Am.St.Rep. 900.²⁷
 |
International Treaties
"The present revised Constitution, together with those international treaties, conventions and obligations to which Ethiopia shall be party, shall be the supreme law of the Empire, and all future legislation, decrees, orders, judgments, decisions and acts inconsistent therewith shall be null and void."²⁸
A definition for the word "narcotic" is provided in Article 3(13) of the 1964 Pharmacy Regulations:
"narcotic" shall mean any drug classified as a narcotic under such international narcotics conventions as are binding on Ethiopia and included in the current revised "List of Narcotic Drugs under International Control" as issued by the Permanent Central Opium Board (sometimes also referred to as the International Narcotics Control Board).²⁹
Ethiopia formally acceded to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs treaty on April 29, 1965 and subsequently added legislation for its enforcement as Article 72 of the 1964 Pharmacy Regulations on May, 18, 1965.³⁰
According to Article 1(b)(c)(d) of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, cannabis is defined as follows:
b) "Cannabis" means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.
c) "Cannabis plant" means any plant of the genus Cannabis,
d) "Cannabis resin" means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant.³¹
The List of Narcotic Drugs Under International Control is always published "in accordance with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961".³²
These treaties restrict cannabis to medicinal use, scientific research purposes and cultivation for industrial/horticultural purposes, "fibre and seed," only.³³
The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs and the INCB Yellow List classify cannabis as a Schedule I narcotic.³⁴
Article 34(1) of the 1964 Pharmacy Regulations states, "No pharmacy shall dispense a medicinal preparation containing a narcotic, except according to a prescription."³⁵
If it's eventually included in the latest revised United States Pharmacopeia, according to Haile Selassie's Imperial Ethiopian laws, medicinal cannabis must be dispensed with a prescription that was received from competent licensed medical experts only. As of today, apart from the specific derivatives already mentioned, cannabis is not allowed to be used medicinally according to His Majesty's laws.
The USP is actively working toward re-including cannabis in its publications however, driven by legalization, public health needs, and scientific advancements. While derivatives are already featured, a broader cannabis monograph (e.g., for inflorescence) is very likely to appear in the Herbal Medicines Compendium (HMC) soon, with USP-NF inclusion probable if U.S. federal laws evolve.³⁶
To be clear, the USP is not legally barred from including cannabis per se but avoids adding it to the USP-NF due to its federal Schedule I status, opting instead for non-binding standards in the HMC and reference materials. If cannabis remains federally illegal, the USP will likely continue developing cannabis standards outside the USP-NF, as seen with current efforts. Inclusion in the USP-NF is more likely post-rescheduling or legalization.³⁷ The USP already includes cannabis derivatives (e.g., Δ-9-THC in dronabinol monographs, CBD standards) because these align with FDA-approved drugs or state-level regulations, avoiding direct conflict with federal law.
The 2020 decision to remove cannabis from Schedule IV of the 1961 Single Convention (while retaining it in Schedule I) acknowledged its medicinal potential but did not alter restrictions on recreational use. This change, voted on by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), has fueled reform discussions but has not led to INCB policy shifts regarding non-medical use.³⁸
Even though the Emperor acceded to the 1961 Single Convention agreeing with its original narcotics scheduling and classifications, parties to the treaty are technically obligated to adapt to changes such as the 2020 removal of cannabis from Schedule IV (drugs with particularly dangerous properties and limited therapeutic value), as the treaty explicitly allows schedule amendments under Article 3 and broader changes under Article 47. Nations can object or withdraw but are otherwise bound by CND decisions. In practice, nations retain some flexibility in implementation, and the INCB's enforcement is limited to reporting and diplomacy. The treaty's design ensures adaptability, meaning signatories implicitly consent to potential updates when joining.³⁹
The treaty's schedules are not a precise scale of harm but a tool for control, allowing distinctions in risk to be addressed outside the scheduling itself. In this sense, for example, cannabis and fentanyl share an equal classification in Schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention—meaning they face the same international control measures.
Traditional Rastafarians have vehemently objected to the Emperor's criminalization of cannabis citing all kinds of excuses for it. For instance, the idea that His Majesty was under international pressure to criminalize cannabis is completely false. A perfect example which demonstrates the Emperor's nuanced and selective approach to adopting international treaties is the U.N.'s 1971 Psychotropic Substances Convention which he never agreed to.⁴⁰
Article 32(4) of the Psychotropic Substances Convention gives all the nations who adopt the treaty the power to grant religious exemptions for the use of psychotropic substances if they so choose.⁴¹
Despite international pressure, His Majesty didn't agree with the treaty's criminalization of chat nor with other nations having the ability to grant religious exemptions concerning the use of drugs for religious purposes so he didn't adopt the treaty.
Čat (Arab. Qāt, Gāt, Oromo Jimaa, Latin Catha edulis) is a flowering evergreen shrub native to East Africa and southern Arabia, more specifically to Yemen, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Madagascar, and Tanzania. A species of the plant family Celastraceae, the plant thrives under a variety of climatic conditions and various soil types at altitudes from 900 m to 2,000 m A.S.L., mainly between 1,500 m and 1,800 m A.S.L. The leaves and young shoots are chewed fresh to permit absorption of its soluble ingredients, which are known to produce pleasurable, stimulating and euphoric effects. The origin of Čat is obscure, but it may be traced to at least the medieval period in the Red Sea region, where the use of Čat as a stimulant is thought to predate that of coffee. Traditionally, the leaves were chewed either by Muslims engaged in religious studies and worship, or groups, mainly of older men socializing with others of the same age group, status or profession for increased alertness, energy and the capacity for concentration. Today, several million people have become habitual chewers, irrespective of gender, age, religious or ethnic affiliation, owing to the fact that fresh Čat can be transported much more rapidly to distant places. Chewing the fresh leaves, two or three days off the tree, sometimes with sugar, is the preferred method of use, although a kind of paste made from powdered leaves is said to be ingested or an infusion made by boiling dried leaves can be drunk. Čat is almost never smoked as tobacco, although the ends of the twigs and leaves are sometimes crushed and rolled in cigarettes. The principal pharmacologically active ingredient of Čat was previously thought to be cathine, but the alkaloid cathinone has recently been isolated from Čat leaves and recognized as the major active constituent. Several studies have revealed that the pharmacological profile of cathinone closely resembles that and produces behavioural effects in chewers analogous to those of amphetamine. The literature on Čat targets its pharmacological and economic aspects and emphasizes the supposedly deleterious effects of Čat on the individual and society. However, there is no scientific consensus on whether Čat chewing is addictive or not. In fact, statements concerning the medical and behavioural effects of Čat are inconclusive and contradictory. Most experts nevertheless observe that the main effects of chewing Čat are a moderate degree of euphoria and excitement, often followed by loquacity. Immediate and severe medical problems are infrequent (because cathinone becomes diluted in the other material of the leaves), but high doses may induce hyperactivity and, sometimes, manic behaviour with grandiose delusions, or a paranoid type of illness, sometimes accompanied by hallucinations. Čat is also an effective anorectic, perhaps the cause of the malnutrition often seen in habitual Čat users. It also causes hyperthermia and increased respiration. Notwithstanding its alleged adverse health effects, Čat is today unquestionably the most important cash crop in many parts of Ethiopia. In the early 1990s, Čat occupied nearly 14% of the total cultivated land in Ethiopia and generated annually an average of 23 million bərr in income tax and 40 million bərr in foreign-exchange earnings, while the amount of domestically marketed Čat reached an estimated 5,000 tons. In 1999, Čat was officially the second largest Ethiopian export after coffee.⁴²
The 1930 Penal Code, the 1931 Constitution, 1955 Revised Constitution, the 1957 Penal Code, the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1964 Pharmacy Regulations have no religious exemptions for the use of drugs. Therefore all drugs, narcotics and psychotropic substances past, present and future are illegal according to the Emperor, be that natural (e.g., ayahuasca) or synthetic (e.g., crystal meth) except chat.
Even though cannabis is illegal according to Art. 510 of the 1957 Ethiopian Penal Code, Article 79(b) allows the Court to reduce the penalty within certain limits when the offender was prompted by a high religious, moral or civil conviction.⁴³ Cannabis, even if used for religious or spiritual reasons, isn't protected under the Penal Code because punishment would still be imposed by the Court, albeit, reduced to an extent.
Yet habitually consuming cannabis neglects Article 28(1) of the Penal Code which allows the Court to not punish offenders only if they renounce the pursuit of their criminal activity and their renunciation was prompted by reasons of honesty or high motives, such as, the discovery of the fact that cannabis was unlawful in Imperial Ethiopia during the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie.⁴⁴
Furthermore, His Majesty categorized cannabis dependency as a mental illness as according to the 7th and 8th editions of the International Classification of Diseases of 1955 and 1965.⁴⁵ He also said:
We must ensure that all necessary steps are taken to safeguard the defence of our coastline to suppress illicit trade and to cooperate with our neighbours. [...] Lack of responsibility, destructiveness, and over and above all lawlessness, it must be known, will not be tolerated.⁴⁶
According to His Majesty, the religious/spiritual, medicinal and recreational use of inflorescent cannabis is strictly prohibited. Haile Selassie's government enforced the criminalization of all illicit drugs including cannabis (Penal Code 1957 Arts. 354, 364, 365, 428, 510, 518, 519, 738, 786, Pharmacy Regulations 1964 Arts. 3, 13, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 45, 72, 75). Traditional Rastafarians have misinterpreted the scriptures and therefore must cease their criminal endeavors and stop associating the Emperor with cannabis immediately.
____________________________________________
About the Author
His Eminence Liqa Wambar Petar Vukotic is the Archbishop of the Zufan Chilot Church and the Secretary for the Global Alliance of Justice for the Ethiopian Cause (GAJEC), he's a member of the International Society for the Imperial Ethiopian Orders and is the world's leading authority for interpreting Imperial Ethiopian case law. He's also Moa Anbessa's Imperial Ethiopian Constitutional Law Expert.
Comments
Post a Comment