Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis – Did We Get It All Wrong?

By: Mitchell Colbert

Indica, Sativa, Ruderalis - Did We Get It All Wrong, Source: https://s3.amazonaws.com/leafly/content/sativa-indica-and-hybrid-whats-the-difference-between-cannabis-ty/primary.jpg

Since the 1970s, cannabis has been divided into three sub-species (often confused as different species), C. indica, C. sativa, C. ruderalis, with ruderalis largely being considered ‘wild cannabis,’ not fit for medicinal or recreational uses. A common lay-persons distinction is between marijuana, which is bred for high cannabinoid content, and hemp, which is bred for industrial uses like fiber.

Any of the three subspecies can be bred as a hemp or marijuana plant. John McPartland, a researcher affiliated with GW Pharmaceuticals, presented a study at the 2014 meeting of the International Cannabis Research Society,  proposing a new nomenclature for cannabis. The original report on O’Shaughnessy’s contains more information than I can reproduce here, and has a wonderful chart; it is definitely worth your time to read.

It seems Richard Evans Schultes, the man who created the original taxonomy for cannabis in the 1970s, misidentified a C. afghanica plant as a C. indica plant. That one mistake began 40 years of confusion which has only been dispelled by McPartland’s research this year.

McPartland was the first researcher to look at the genetic markers on the three subspecies of cannabis using the plant’s genome to conclusively identify where it originated. He also proved conclusively that they are all the same species, just different subspecies. As it turns out, C. sativa should have been identified as C. indica, because it originated in India (hence indica). C. indica should have been identified as C. afghanica, because it actually originated in Afghanistan. Finally, it seems that C. ruderalis is actually what people mean when they refer to C. sativa.

If that sounds confusing, refer to this handy table, or the original chart.

Cannabis Indica (Formerly Sativa)

Origin: India

Morphology: Taller (>1.5m) than their short and stocky Afghanica cousins, with sparser branches and less dense buds/flowers.

Physiology: Longer flowering time, between nine and fourteen weeks. Minimal frost tolerance with a moderate production of resin.

Chemistry: Much greater THC than CBD and other cannabinoids, this leads to the “head high” many users report.

Psychoactivity: Stimulating.

Cannabis Afghanica (Formerly Indica)

Origin: Central Asia (Afghanistan, Turkestan, Pakistan)

Morphology: Shorter (<1.5m) than Indica strains with dense branches with wider leaves, and much denser buds/flowers

Physiology: Shorter flowering time, as little as seven to nine weeks. Good frost tolerance with high resin production. Afghanica strains can be susceptible to mold due to how dense the buds and branches are.

Chemistry: More variable than Indica strains. THC is often still the predominant cannabinoid but some strains have 1:1 ratios and some may have even higher CBD than THC.

Psychoactivity: Sedating.

Cannabis Sativa (Formerly Ruderalis)

Origin: Usually feral or wild. From Europe or Central Asia.

Morphology: Variable, depending on origin.

Physiology: The flowering time is short and variable, many varieties exhibit autoflowering traits (flowering independently of sun cycles). Moderate frost tolerance with relatively low resin production.

Chemistry: More CBD than THC. Prominent terpenes include caryophyllene and myrcene, giving these strains a floral flavor and scent.

Psychoactivity: Usually lacking.

This new nomenclature should come to replace the old system, because it is grounded in the actual genetics of the plant and is scientifically sound. Despite that, it is likely that this new naming scheme will face resistance from cannabis users and those in the medical cannabis industry who will have become used to decades of convention firmly establishing an inaccurate taxonomy.

This is reminiscent of the Brontosaurus, a dinosaur that never existed but we were all taught in school it was real, or the former 9th planet of Pluto (now a ‘dwarf planet’). Sometimes science gets it wrong and it is up to modern scientists with better methods, like McPartland, to correct our old mistakes.

The difficult part will be getting mass acceptance of his newly proposed taxonomy. What seems likely is that a split may develop between academics and laymen, with academics adopting the new system and laymen continuing to adhere to the old system, at least for a few more years.

Perhaps in time C. afghanica, C. indica, and C. sativa will come into the vogue, but that largely depends on the willingness of the medical cannabis industry to adopt this new system and thus pass it on to the patients and growers. But it seems unlikely that the cannabis industry would wholeheartedly jump on board, given the risk that this new nomenclature could confuse patients who may be used to seeing only “indicas” and “sativas” on the shelf.

Time will tell.

CONTINUE READING…

Advertisements

Cannabis-Related Disorders

images8

Background

In January, 2014, Colorado became the first state in the United States to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes, marking the beginning of what will likely become the end of marijuana prohibition. Marijuana was legal in the United States until 1937, when Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act, effectively making the drug illegal. The American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the legislation at the time of its passage. Additionally, from 1850-1942, marijuana was listed in the US Pharmacopoeia, the official list of recognized medical drugs . Cannabis was marketed as extract or tincture by several pharmaceutical companies and used for ailments such as anxiety and lack of appetite.

Despite the medical establishment’s views on the benefits of marijuana, the passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, defined as a category of drugs not considered legitimate for medical use. Other Schedule I drugs include heroin, phencyclidine(PCP), and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).[1]

A significant paradox and disconnect continues to exist between the federal government’s outdated policies versus changing state laws, the general public’s perception and acceptance of marijuana, and even the President himself. In discussing his own marijuana use with New Yorker editor David Remnick, President Obama commented, "As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol." He elaborated that marijuana was actually less dangerous than alcohol "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer."[2]

Currently, 21 states have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, with many others actively considering the issue. Additionally, a recent survey by NBC News/The Wall Street Journal shows that the majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana.[3] Recent federal policy changes have attempted to redress the inconsistencies between federal and state law. In 2009, the Justice Department issued a federal medical marijuana policy memo to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and US Attorneys instructing prosecutors not to target medicinal marijuana patients and their providers for federal prosecution in states where medicinal marijuana has been legalized. In the summer of 2010, the Department of Veteran Affairs issued a department directive to "formally allow patients treated at its hospitals and clinics to use medical marijuana in states where it is legal, a policy clarification that veterans have sought for years."[4]

In the Netherlands, where the distribution of marijuana has been legalized, the effect of decriminalization has had little effect on the consumption rate of cannabis.[5] In 2004, Reinarman et al looked at the consumption of marijuana rates between San Francisco and Amsterdam to see what effect decriminalization had on these different populations.[6] The results showed that the consumption habits between the two populations were negligible. Little evidence has shown that the decriminalization of cannabis has changed the consumption habits of the populations involved.[7]

While there is a rich history of anecdotal accounts of the benefits of marijuana and a long tradition of marijuana being used for a variety of ailments, the scientific literature in support of medicinal uses of marijuana is less substantial. Considered one of the first scientifically valid papers in support of marijuana’s medicinal benefit, in 2007, Dr. Donald Abrams and colleagues published the results of a randomized placebo-controlled trial examining the effect of smoked cannabis on the neuropathic pain of HIV-associated sensory neuropathy and an experimental pain model. The authors concluded that smoked cannabis effectively relieved chronic neuropathic pain in HIV-associated sensory neuropathy and was well tolerated by patients. The pain relief was comparable to chronic neuropathic pain treated with oral drugs.[8]

According to Harvard Medical School’s April, 2010 edition of the Harvard Mental Health Letter[9] : Consensus exists that marijuana may be helpful in treating certain carefully defined medical conditions. In its comprehensive 1999 review, for example, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that marijuana may be modestly effective for pain relief (particularly nerve pain), appetite stimulation for people with AIDS wasting syndrome, and control of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.

These widely held beliefs in the medical community supporting the medicinal benefit of marijuana are starting to gain support in the form of rigorous empirical evidence demonstrating its clinical benefit and limited potential for harm. In 2012, the AMA published a landmark study that followed more than 5,000 patients longitudinally over 20 years. The results of the study were somewhat surprising. Although many had assumed that regular exposure to marijuana smoke would result in pulmonary function damage, similar to the deleterious effects seen with regular tobacco smoke exposure, the study convincingly demonstrated that regular exposure to marijuana smoke did not adversely affect lung function. Even more surprising, regular marijuana smokers demonstrated increased total lung function capacity.

The authors report, “Marijuana may have beneficial effects on pain control, appetite, mood, and management of other chronic symptoms. Our findings suggest that occasional use of marijuana for these or other purposes may not be associated with adverse consequences on pulmonary function.”[10]

The AMA is urging the federal government to change the classification of marijuana from a Schedule I drug to enable further clinical research on marijuana. Additionally, Harvard Mental Health Letter’s authors point out that while marijuana works to relieve pain, suppress nausea, reduce anxiety, improve mood, and act as a sedative, the evidence that marijuana may be an effective treatment for psychiatric indications is inconclusive.[11]

In a recently published systematic review published as a “Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology”, the authors performed a systematic review of medical marijuana from 1948 to November 2013 to identify the role of medical marijuana in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy and, movement disorders. The authors concluded that medical marijuana was found to be effective for treating MS-related pain or painful spasms.[11]

While marijuana may have medicinal benefits, its use in excess by some individuals can lead to marked impairment in social and occupational functioning. Published in 2013, the fifth edition of TheDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) included significant changes to substance-related and addictive disorders. DSM-5 combined the previously separate categories of substance abuse and dependence into a single disorder of substance use, specific to the substance (eg, Alcohol Use Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder)

DSM-5 recognizes the following 5 cannabis-associated disorders[12] :

  • Cannabis Use Disorder

  • Cannabis Intoxication

  • Cannabis Withdrawal

  • Other Cannabis-Induced Disorders

  • Unspecified Cannabis-Related Disorder

CONTINUE READING….

Please review the article in it’s entirety online thru link above.  There are many people vying for the "Cannabis use disorder" syndrome for the purpose of promoting physician care and pharmaceutical drugs. In my opinion this is because they need something new to pick up the slack in their business because Cannabis legalization  is continuing to grow across the Nation.

Be aware of what your Physician is trying to do to you with this Diagnosis code which will be permanently instilled into your medical records, along with your prescription drug use thru the monitoring programs now in existence.

We are being wrapped up nice and tight with a new bow tie….CANNABIS ABUSE.

These additional articles previously posted on site are also related to this issue: (smk)

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/06/26/marijuana-addiction-drug-research-gets-3-million-grant-as-obama-encourages-legalization/

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/06/26/the-protection-of-commerce-in-the-form-of-pharmaceutical-industrial-complex/

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/06/22/docs-dont-like-medical-marijuana/

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2013/01/06/patrick-kennedy-on-marijuana-former-rep-leads-campaign-against-legal-pot/

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2012/07/13/why-do-clinics-deny-painkillers-to-medical-marijuana-patients/

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2012/05/30/government-forced-nci-to-censor-medical-cannabis-facts/

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/09/24/all-roads-in-kentucky-lead-you-through-hell/

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/09/14/a-summary-of-two-doctors/

WWII Veteran: 90% of Congress are Traitors to Our Country

World War II Veteran Warren Bodeker from Plains, Montana is no stranger to controversy. He was a war hero who was involved in the saving of 2,000 American prisoners from execution by the Japanese, only to return home to have the federal government intimidate him and threaten to take his home and land, which were fully paid for. Bodeker sat down with Cliven Bundy in 2014 to talk about government tyranny, but shortly before that, he took time to point out that much of our problems lie with those who are supposed to serve us.

According to Bodeker, ninety percent of Congress are traitors to our country.

That might seem like a harsh statement to many, but consider that their oath binds them to limited tasks, of which is to "uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

This oath is to the Constitution, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, not a party nor a political figure.

Bodeker took time to speak of his own oath and how Congress has failed miserably in upholding their own.

This man was a true treasure to America. Though he died in September 2015 at the age of 92, Bodeker had many words of wisdom, if only we would heed them. Take a listen.

CONTINUE THRU LINK TO VIDEO (WORTH WATCHING)!

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/wwii-veteran-90-of-congress-are-traitors-to-our-country/#mri4dD4ZTHmTAR02.99

Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research now publishing with the International Cannabinoid Research Society

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, January 21, 2016–Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research the new peer-reviewed open access journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, announces a new partnership with The International Cannabinoid Research Society. This new collaboration promotes the missions of the Journal and Society to further the advancement of cannabis and cannabinoid-related research.

This new relationship reflects the growing need for education and broader dissemination of cannabis and cannabinoid biology research in the scientific and medical community, particularly in the face of the widespread changes to cannabis regulation worldwide. For over 25 years, the International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS) has been a leading society dedicated to education and scientific research in all fields of cannabis and cannabinoid research.

"The ICRS is delighted to affiliate with Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research and to collaborate with Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., to further the Society’s educational objectives and support the dissemination of peer-reviewed cannabinoid research," says Cecilia J. Hillard, PhD, Executive Director of ICRS.

Led by Editor-in-Chief Daniele Piomelli, PhD, PharmD, Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research provides an important open access venue for publishing the scientific, medical, and psychosocial exploration of clinical cannabis, cannabinoids, and the endocannabinoid system. In addition to its collaboration with the ICRS, the Journal will publish the Society’s 2016 Symposium abstracts. The ICRS 26th Annual Symposium will take place on June 27-30th, 2016, at the Bukovina Terma Hotel in Bukowina Tatrza?ska, Poland.

"We are excited to partner with the ICRS because they have a long history of facilitating scientific discussion and research on cannabis and cannabinoid science," says Jordan Schilling, Director of Open Access Publishing at Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. "Similarly, both Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research and the ICRS bring a diverse group of scientists and practitioners together not only to advance the science but also to share, learn and ultimately provide better education on cannabinoid research for medical application."

###

About the International Cannabinoid Research Society

The International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS) is a non-political, non-religious organization dedicated to scientific research in all fields of the cannabinoids, ranging from biochemical, chemical and physiological studies of the endogenous cannabinoid system to studies of the abuse potential of recreational Cannabis. In addition to acting as a source for impartial information on Cannabis and the cannabinoids, the main role of the ICRS is to provide an open forum for researchers to meet and discuss their research. More information can be found the ICRS website.

About the Journal

Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research is the only peer-reviewed open access journal dedicated to the scientific, medical, and psychosocial exploration of clinical cannabis, cannabinoids, and the endocannabinoids system. Led by Editor-in-Chief Daniele Piomelli, PhD, PharmD, the Journal publishes a broad range of human and animal studies including basic and translational research; clinical studies; behavioral, social, and epidemiological issues; and ethical, legal, and regulatory controversies. Visit the Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research website to read the latest articles published in the Journal.

About the Publisher

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including Journal of Palliative Medicine, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, and Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry’s most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm’s journals, books, and newsmagazines is available on the Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers website.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

CONTINUE READING…

A Maricopa County nonprofit that makes much of its money off low-level marijuana offenders would take a big financial hit if Arizona voters legalize marijuana in November

Potential Marijuana Legalization in Arizona Threatens TASC Drug Treatment Firm's Funding

The Treatment Assessment Screening Center, better known as TASC, contracts with the county to provide six months of mandatory drug-treatment services for first- or second-time offenders who get busted for possession of illegal drugs. TASC participants, with exceptions for low-income offenders, pay their own way for the program

If Arizonans vote "yes" on the Colorado-style legalization measure expected to be on the ballot next year, it would have huge effect on TASC, the nonprofit’s CEO, Doug Kramer, acknowledges. TASC would need to seek out other court-ordered funding sources "to counter the loss of operating revenue," Kramer says.

TASC is "akin to a for-profit prison." — Tom Dean, a metro Phoenix lawyer who specializes in cannabis cases.

The financial loss also could jeopardize a new TASC initiative that provides grants to local nonprofit groups working to fight substance abuse, he says.

While legalization might make it harder for TASC to stay in business, cannabis consumers won’t miss the program.

As New Times reported earlier this month, experts believe that just 12 percent to 16 percent of people who smoke marijuana regularly meet the American Psychiatric Association’s criteria for dependency. That is, the vast majority of marijuana users aren’t addicted and don’t need treatment for their use of their plant, yet they’re still treated like hard drug abusers under the law. 

"TASC is government-run, taxpayer-funded legal extortion," Yelp user A.W. of Granada Hills, California, wrote online in 2014. "I live in Cali (and) had a bong confiscated in AZ… now I have to jump through hoops to avoid a class-6 felony on my record." The user concluded his review with angry-sounding f-bombs.

In Arizona, which has one of the strictest possession laws in the country, getting caught with the tiniest amount of weed — and no valid medical-marijuana card — usually results in a trip to jail and an initial felony charge. In Maricopa County, prosecutors typically offer to drop the felony charge in exchange for submitting to the TASC adult-diversion program. Cannabis offenders are then required to attend an anti-drug class and submit to urine tests for six months. Testing positive for marijuana or other substances during the program means extra fees for the defendant; people who repeatedly fail drugs are kicked out of the program and usually prosecuted for a misdemeanor.

Although Arizona passed a drug-reform law in 1996 that prohibits a sentence of jail or prison for first- or second-time drug offenders, TASC has been around since 1977. The county contracted with TASC in 1989, offering a program for marijuana offenders that’s similar to the one still offered today.

Potential Marijuana Legalization in Arizona Threatens TASC Drug Treatment Firm's Funding (2)

In the county’s fiscal year 2015, which ended in July, 2,591 people successfully completed TASC and 1,996 — or about 77 percent —  were marijuana offenders.

Related Stories

The County Attorney’s Office could not provide statistics that detail how many TASC referrals involved possession of fewer than six plants for cultivation, or less than an ounce of marijuana, both of which would be legal under the proposed ballot measure. But it’s safe to say that of the 77 percent of marijuana cases TASC handled in fiscal year 2015, most would disappear.

TASC declined to state the general cost to a marijuana offender for the program, but Tom Dean, a local attorney who works with marijuana defendants, says — including urinanalysis — it  runs about $1,300 per person.

Dean notes that the program is a monopoly with captured clientele.

Attorney Tom Dean

Attorney Tom Dean

arizonamarijuanalaw.com

TASC is "akin to a for-profit prison in that regard," he says.

While TASC soaks marijuana offenders because of the state’s draconian cannabis laws, online tax records show that TASC executives use that money to reward themselves with lavish salaries. As New Times reports today, former TASC CEO Barbara Zugor, one of the founders, has been making $360,000 to $476,000 annually for the last several years, records show.

Jerry Cobb, spokesman for County Attorney Bill Montgomery, took offense to a recent New Times article that states how the County Attorney’s Office "forced" a cannabis consumer to quit cold turkey for six months.

"To say that she was forced is wrong," Cobb fumed. "It’s a cheap attention-getter."

The woman, a 23-year-old waitress, "was not forced to have a felony dismissed from her record," he says. "A defendant can choose not to participate in drug treatment."

Although the article makes it clear that the woman was given the choice that Cobb mentions, it’s really not much of a choice. By initially charging a marijuana offense as a felony, Montgomery’s office leverages TASC participation against, on conviction, getting stripped of the right to vote and getting banned from owning firearms.

Also the implied threat is that once convicted of such a crime, there is a lifetime of lost earning potential. 

Lawyer Mel McDonald, former Arizona U.S. Attorney and a supporter of legal medical marijuana, says he appreciates being able to offer his clients the TASC option.

"[Marijuana] is still against the law and [Montgomery] has the right to prosecute," McDonald says. "He’s been extremely fair in giving people charged with marijuana an ‘out.’"

Brad Carlyon, Navajo County Attorney, offers marijuana offenders an easier deal than counterparts Bill Montgomery and Sheila Polk.

Brad Carlyon, Navajo County Attorney, offers marijuana offenders an easier deal than counterparts Bill Montgomery and Sheila Polk.

navajocountyaz.gov

Yet it’s also true that Montgomery could use his discretion as a prosecutor to further ease the punishment of marijuana offenders, as prosecutors have done in other Arizona counties.

Montgomery’s not required by any statute to make marijuana users go to TASC as part of the deferred-prosecution deals he approves. The 1996 reform law, Proposition 200, requires that people convicted of drug possession go through a drug-treatment program. But under a deferred prosecution, there is no conviction.

As Dean points out, Navajo County requires cannabis offenders to pay $750, perform community service, and sign up for an online workbook about drugs — no drug testing at all is required. Coconino County goes one better, Dean says, charging offenders $400.

Montgomery, he says, runs the strictest anti-marijuana prosecution in the state by using an initial felony charge while most prosecutors charge low-level pot offenders with a misdemeanor.

This shouldn’t be surprising, since Montgomery is one of the most vocal anti-cannabis activists in the state.

Another pot-prohibitionist, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk,seems to have turned a personal bias against marijuana into official agency policy. Polk doesn’t offer deferred prosecutions but allows marijuana offenders to accept a misdemeanor conviction in return for staying clean during 18 months of urine testing.

Navajo County Attorney Brad Carlyon tells New Times that he chooses not to require drug testing for marijuana offenders because it would take too long for people to drive to testing services in the rural county —  and because "people don’t have money here."

TASC signed a contract in 2009 with the county to provide services until February 2016. The county hasn’t yet asked TASC to bid for another contract, and TASC hasn’t requested a new contract, says Fields Moseley, a county spokesman.

It’s unclear whether TASC will continue to offer the program. But Moseley says TASC doesn’t need to ink a contract with the county to keep doing what it does, since TASC participants pay for their participation.

CONTINUE READING…

Washington DC vs. America: The Federal Land Grab

What a mess. For generations, Washington D.C. has attempted to grab our guns and state legislatures follow its lawless example. It occupies 640 million acres of America. But having our guns and our land taken by D.C. thugs isn’t about the Second Amendment. It is about Washington D.C. and its allies in multinational and foreign corporations, waging war against us.

The war is Washington D.C. vs. America

Every time Congress or a federal court takes up any issue of us vs. them, they rule for themselves. Our side is split up into countless small groups, each fighting for our single issue. How can we ever win this war and restore rule of law?

The Founding Fathers made provision for that. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution, We The People authorize Congress to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions…". Then in Clause 16 we authorize Congress to, "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia…reserving to the States…the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia". That’s the Law in plain English. It’s clear, simple, and non-negotiable.

See? The Second Amendment is the wrong battle because 80 million Americans already own over 250 million firearms. The problem is, few of them are military-grade arms suitable for Citizen Militia. Also, few citizens are trained to execute the laws or protect their community in a crisis or attack, because no American belongs to a constitutional Citizen Militia. Not a single state has a constitutional Militia law. Pulling together a bunch of gung-ho guys in ‘unorganized Militia’ doesn’t pass constitutional muster.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it. We need to exercise our power and duty over the Constitution by "execut(ing) the Laws of the Union", not arguing with liberals and tyrants in the White House or in our statehouse about ‘gun rights’. Sovereigns don’t argue with their lawless servants about rights; we execute the laws!

Notice how this ties into land-grabs by the BLM, EPA, NFS and other illicit alphabet agencies. To execute the highest law, we need to make our State legislatures shut down the federal bureaucracies occupying our states’ sovereign public lands in violation of the Constitution. Our legislators don’t have the backbone to do it, so we need to force them to obey the Constitution, too. I will explain how, in Part 3.

But here’s the federal land-grab in a nutshell. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, We The People give Congress permission to "exercise exclusive Legislation…over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)…and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards…".

THIS MAP depicts land that Washington D.C. lawfully acquired from the states by that section of the law. Compare that to THIS MAP depicting the over 640 million acres of state lands being occupied, claimed or controlled by Washington D.C. in direct violation of the Constitution!

This began when the West consisted of ‘territories’ that Washington D.C. grabbed from the Indians, Spaniards, French and Mexicans. Once a State entered the Union, its land became its own sovereign property and every State had to treat its co-sovereigns equally; this is a republic.

But you know how politicians are; Washington D.C. wanted to keep all that land, minerals, timber and water for itself. Congress and the federal courts have been citing Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 as Washington D.C.’s right to steal public lands belonging to the States: "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

See that last sentence? It means that neither Washington D.C. nor any sovereign State can win a court battle over a State’s land. It is the duty of the State Legislature to put its foot down on federal occupation of our land in violation of the highest law. And it is the duty and power of the Citizen Militia to make the law stick!

America can win this war against lawless Washington D.C., but only by first enacting a constitutional Militia statute in each state.

Remember, in the Constitution, We The People created, defined, and limited our servant government in Washington D.C., including the U.S. supreme Court. In any contest between America and Washington D.C., We The People are the highest authority. If something is clear in our Constitution, We The People – not federal courts – are the final word on what the law says. This powerful principle is explained in the book, The People Themselves, by former Stanford Law School dean Larry Kramer.

This isn’t rocket science. Every State legislature needs to enact a constitutional Militia statute, set up training and appoint Militia officers; that’s the law. Then when the State legislature passes its law to expel every lawless federal bureaucrat, agent, and thug from the State, the Citizen Militia of that State can "execute the Laws of the Union".

We The People gave no authority or jurisdiction to Washington D.C. of one square inch of land in any sovereign State on earth, except in that passage about military bases and forts purchased from the States with approval of the State Legislature. Everything else that Washington D.C. thugs and bureaucrats are doing in ‘federal lands’ or a ‘federal possession’ is criminal activity.

Thousands of Americans have horror stories about tyranny by federal bureaucrats, agents, and operatives. This was out of control generations ago, and it’s our fault. We The People have work to do, to turn this long war back in America’s favor.

Stay tuned for Part 3 to see how we will do that. I had originally planned five articles, but I think I can finish this series in three parts.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/washington-dc-vs-america-the-federal-land-grab/#tCf5Mw2k3XliBbvx.99

Veterans Protest for Legalization of Medical Marijuana

Medical marijuana needs to be seriously considered as an alternate for these veterans. However, because it is classified as an illegal substance, their doctors cannot even approach the subject. They are strictly limited to an arsenal of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.

U.S. Marijuana Party Kentucky

This Veterans Day, dozens of servicemen marched to the White House demanding that medical marijuana be considered as realistic recovery option.

Medical marijuana needs to be seriously considered as an alternate for these veterans. However, because it is classified as an illegal substance, their doctors cannot even approach the subject. They are strictly limited to an arsenal of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.

Source: Veterans Protest for Legalization of Medical Marijuana

View original post

Remove Marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act & End Cannabis Prohibition

marijuana-pixabay8_large

Petition by Deschedule 2016

To be delivered to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama

Issue an Executive Order directing the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to cease enforcing codes under the Controlled Substances Act relating to marijuana and its cannabinoids.
Pass legislation to:
• Amend the Controlled Substances Act to remove marijuana and its cannabinoids from the schedule of controlled substances;
• Remove restrictions for import and export of marijuana, including viable seed;
• Transfer authority for cannabis regulation and licensing to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), designating it as an agricultural crop;
• Amend Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 to remove the “for research purposes only” provision to permit for legal personal and commercial hemp cultivation nationwide.
Join Canada, Mexico and other countries to call for the end of global marijuana prohibition during the United Nation’s General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem, April 19-21, 2016 in New York.

CONTINUE READING…..

SIGN PETITITION HERE…

Court official hears allegations against marijuana activist

Bill Downing (right) appeared in court in Brighton with his attorneys Steven S. Epstein, left, and John G. Swomley.

Downing says he’s being singled out over cannabis-oil sale

By Milton J. Valencia Globe Staff  January 19, 2016

One of the state’s leading proponents for the legalization of marijuana — who now faces possible criminal drug distribution charges for selling a cannabis-based oil — told a clerk magistrate Tuesday that he believed he was selling a legal product known as CBD, recognized across the country for its medical benefits.

“I [believed it] then, and I still do now,” a defiant Bill Downing said under questioning during a hearing at Boston Municipal Court in Brighton.

Boston police have sought to charge Downing, 57, with nine counts of distribution of a Class D drug, marijuana, or a Class C drug, THC, out of a store he operated in Allston, called CBD Please. Downing sold a liquid form of CBD by the gram to undercover Boston police officers on several occasions in late 2014 and early 2015.

When Downing testified, he cited the manufacturer’s guide for the product he was selling, which reads, “100 percent legal in all 50 states.” His lawyers argued that police singled Downing out, even though other companies in Massachusetts have sold the same product.

State chemists who tested the CBD sold by Downing to the undercover officers found traces of THC, the psychoactive element in marijuana, but chemists differed on whether to classify the product as a Class C or a Class D drug.

View Story

Police seek charges against marijuana legalization advocate

Bill Downing’s lawyer says it’s retaliation for criticism of the state’s regulation of the medical marijuana industry.

Clerk Magistrate Stephen Borelli will now decide whether police had probable cause to charge Downing, and whether the case should proceed in court.

During a hearing Tuesday, Lawyers for Downing said Boston police targeted their client for his loud criticism of the state’s medical marijuana industry. Downing formerly operated the Reading-based Yankee Care Givers to provide cannabis products to medical marijuana patients, but state officials shut that business down, saying he could not provide the products to more than one patient under medical marijuana laws approved in 2012.

Downing, a member of the board of directors for the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, has also helped organize the annual marijuana rally on the Boston Common, and he is the treasurer for Bay State Repeal, one of the groups that pushed to put a marijuana legalization measure on the 2016 ballot.

In December 2014, Downing opened CDB Please to sell non-psychoactive cannabis-based products for medical use. He said in press releases and in published news reports at the time that he wanted to provide as much support for medical marijuana use that is allowed under state law.

Kenneth Conley, a Boston police detective, testified during the hearing Tuesday that his superiors wanted him to investigate Downing after reading about the business in the Boston Globe in December 2014.

Conley said he went to the store in an undercover role, and inquired about CDB oil.

“I told him I wasn’t feeling well, lower back pain,” Conley said. “I told him I was having trouble sleeping and I didn’t like smoking marijuana, and he told me the best thing for me was the oil.”

Conley said he paid $40 for the gram of oil. On other occasions, undercover police officers paid $30, or $25.

Conley said a state chemist detected THC when testing the oil. Authorities later seized hundreds of grams of oil and other products, such as hemp shampoo and conditioner, during a raid of Downing’s business and home.

Lawyers for Downing argued that the THC levels in the products are so minimal that the products are exempt from the state law that criminalizes products containing more than 2½ percent THC. One of the lawyers, John Swomley, noted that the chemists had to test nearly the entire gram of liquid oil each time to detect any THC.

Another lawyer, Stephen Epstein, said the CDB Downing sold came from Colorado, and it would not be classified as a controlled substance under US law.

“It’s speculation . . . to believe there was any useable amount of [THC] in anything that tested positive for THC,” he said. Downing “was undertaking a lawful business. What he was doing was perfectly legal, and no crime was committed.”

Borelli invited the lawyers to submit further legal arguments in writing, and said he could issue a decision next week.

Milton J. Valencia can be reached at mvalencia@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @miltonvalencia.

CONTINUE READING…

Georgia lawmakers face seven marijuana bills

6:32 p.m. EST January 19, 2016

635700423041706552-medical-marijuana

Macon Republican Allen Peake isn’t the only state lawmaker pushing marijuana bills during this year’s legislative session.

Peake’s proposal, HB-722, would allow the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana in Georgia. But Georgia lawmakers also face six other drug related proposals ranging from making marijuana possession a misdemeanor to outright legalization of marijuana use in the state.

Senate Bill 254, sponsored by Lowndes County Republican John Colbert, would reduce a possession of marijuana charge from a felony to a misdemeanor for first-time offenders. It also removes the current provision that makes possession of less than ounce of marijuana a misdemeanor.

Under Colbert’s bill, a first-time offender could be sentenced to not more than 12 months in jail, fined $1,000 or both.

House Bill 704, sponsored by Republican John Pezold of Columbus and has Macon Democrat James Beverly as one of the co-sponsors, would allow the cultivation of industrial hemp.

Under current law, a person could lose his or her drivers license if convicted of marijuana possession. But House Bill 283, sponsored by Republican Stephen Allison of Blairsville,would eliminate the license suspension.

Meanwhile, Sen. Curt Thompson, a Gwinnett County Republican, has proposed three marijuana provisions. Senate Bill 7 would allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for an expanded number of conditions.Senate Bill 198 would permit the cultivation, production and retail sale of marijuana throughout the state.

Thompson also offered Senate Resolution 6, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would legalize, regulate and manage marijuana for everyone age 21 and over in Georgia. If the House and Senate approve Thompson’s amendment, voters would decide the issue in a general election.

CONTINUE READING…