I've read this thread, examined the links contained within, extrapolated information found at those links for further research, (including the scholarly information available about the etymology of certain Hebrew words found in the Book of Exodus,) and I find that I am unable to take a firm position either way. As an adherent to the scientific method, I value and understand the importance of peer-review, the ability for others to independently reproduce statistically agreeable results, and the reliability of Occum's Razor. There just isn't enough non-anecdotal evidence to support the notion that large quantities of Simpson's "hemp oil" can produce these effects.
Now, before you jump on me for being skeptical, please note that I also do not deny the possibility that Simpson's "hemp oil" can produce such effects. I only suggest that there isn't enough evidence. Talking about it, saying it is true, and providing anecdotes to support his claims is not enough. High Times, while valued by some users of this site, is hardly a journal of scientific research. Other researchers have to be convinced enough by his evidence that they can reproduce his findings in their own trials. This is a standard burden of proof for all scientific research. With that in mind, Occam's Razor provides this question: If it were true that Simpson had indeed made such a discovery, would it not seem entirely likely that such a result would immediately be of interest to countless researchers in many areas of scientific study? The counter-claim that some widespread conspiracy of silence and government suppression has prevented such research from moving forward is itself not supported by evidence. In fact, many scientists study cannabis, the endocannabinoid system in humans, and the use of cannabis extractions to treat illnesses. Quick searches for scholarly research on each topic can easily reveal this.
Why are so many people who claim to have such a fondness and collective affinity for cannabis willing to accept substandard scientific appraisals of its properties? Such blind acceptance does not further the cause of increased study of cannabis, the end to its prohibition, or its acceptance as a medicine. Instead, it serves to keep cannabis perched firmly on the fringes of science, medicine, and society.
The burden of proof is on Simpson, and I await his report on the research he has performed.