BUNTE BLÜTE CBD FLOWER COURT CASE

Freedom of speech is alive and well in Germany. It says so on the Internet.

In the Bunte Blüte CBD trial, a possible freedom of speech issue was identified by the Leipzig court, Bundesgerichtshof. An expert witness for the police was described by Bunte Blüte not as an expert, but as a ‘self proclaimed’ expert. A fairly harmless thing to say but a potential speech infringement according to Germany’s highest court the Bundesgerichtshof.

Expert Witness

The ‘expert witness’ put forward by police, claimed large quantities of hemp could be gathered up and baked to produce an intoxicating narcotic cookie. Was he an expert or not? Was he a baking expert or a hemp expert? Or perhaps both. This expert witness gave testimony which helped establish “the intoxication clause” – a clause which has since been described as “senseless” and unfair and soon to be deleted from law. Perhaps Bunte Blüte were correct to question his status as an ‘expert’ witness.

Freedom of Speech?

Is this a freedom of speech issue or simply a qualifications issue? Bunte Blüte didn’t agree the police expert was an expert. They were not convinced by his creditials nor were they convinced by his evidence in court. Most people now agree the evidence he gave was incorrect or just hypothetical.

Did the Expert Witness Really Know Industrial Hemp

It seems the expert hadn’t spent years examining the potential of hemp to intoxicate. It seems he hadn’t baked hemp into cookies to see if they intoxicate. It’s unsure if the witness could even prove, beyond reasonable doubt, hemp was an intoxicant. Yet he is presented by police as an expert witness. He didn’t even seem to know that large amounts of CBD present in hemp fibre stops the intoxication process. The expert witness only provided a theory – that hemp might intoxicate if huge amounts were baked into a cookie. No evidence was given to support this claim, we are expected to take his word on faith.

Hemp Experts Do Exist – But There Aren’t Many

Bunte Blüte are quite correct, there are very few proclaimed hemp experts. There are even less internationally proclaimed hemp experts. But there is one, a world leader in hemp research – whose work seems to contradict the baking expert brought forward by German prosecutors. The world renowned hemp expert has years of research into the properties of hemp and documentation supports each of his claims. And, unfortunately, he seems to disagree with the German prosecutors ‘expert’ witness.

Criminology and Expert Witness

Criminology professors at university have studied expert witnesses in detail. They have written books and designed courses around this subject. Criminologists say an expert witnesses is never truly independant- they only pretend to be. It’s a proven fact that expert testimony always supports the person who pays for it.

If a tobacco company pays an expert witness to testify, the evidence provided supports the tobacco company. Research alleged to be impartial and paid for by a pharmaceutical company, will bend to support the interests of the pharmaceutical company. Criminology experts suggest you can always find an ‘independant expert witness’ to say whatever you want.

Police Evidence

With this in mind, we can assume the police prosecutors paid the expert witness handsomely to research hemp and give evidence: And not surprisingly, evidence was found supporting what the police wanted. The police of course were desperate to prove hemp was an intoxicant and a narcotic because they had closed hundreds and perhaps thousands of companies across Germany- by alleging hemp was an intoxicant and a narcotic. The expert witness did what he was paid to do, he came up with an imaginative theory to prove just what the police needed.

A True Hemp Expert

The worlds leading hemp expert is perhaps Dr Ernest Small. He advises governments and countries on hemp legislation. He also advises the European Union on hemp issues and law. ‘A Practical and Natural Taxonomy on Cannabis’ co-authored by Dr Small has influenced industrial hemp regulations across Europe and worldwide. Dr Small has meticulously focused on cannabis plants and THC values offering potential for misuse. It’s one of his areas of expertise. He advises that hemp with a THC value of 0.9% and above in the flowering tops of the plants before harvest, has a potential for misuse. He is clear that hemp with 0.3% THC values can be cultivated for industrial purposes without possibilty for misuse. Nowhere does he mention hemp, with minimal THC, when baked into a giant cookie exhibits narcotic qualities with potential for abuse. The theory presented to court by police prosecutors expert witnesses, has been discredited in courts outside of Germany and is not supported by Dr Small.

Did police prosecutors search for someone to invent and supply a theory to keep prosecutions happening? Or did prosecutors genuinely believe industrial hemp to be public health issue? And if they did, why didn’t they bring evidence to show this?

In Conclusion

Was the man a genuine expert or ‘self proclaimed’ expert as Bunte Blüte suggested? And who cares. Was his evidence backed up by leading authorites or was his evidence out of touch with leading researchers. This doesn’t seem to be a freedom of speech issue as the court suggested, but an impertinence issue. The court noticed the impertinent statement of Bunte Blüte and used freedom of speech laws to stop it. Does freedom of speech allow us to say what we think – as Bunte Blüte did – or does freedom of speech mean you can say what you think, unless I don’t like what you say. And where does that lead?