Category Archives: Cannabis/Marijuana

Whitehouse Press Release– I have a question on medical marijuana…

 

marijuana

February 23, 2017

 

A LINK TO THE ENTIRE PRESS BRIEFING HERE

I have a question on medical marijuana.  Our state voters passed a medical marijuana amendment in November.  Now we’re in conflict with federal law, as many other states are.  The Obama administration kind of chose not to strictly enforce those federal marijuana laws.  My question to you is:  With Jeff Sessions over at the Department of Justice as AG, what’s going to be the Trump administration’s position on marijuana legalization where it’s in a state-federal conflict like this?

MR. SPICER:  Thanks, Roby.  There’s two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana.  

I think medical marijuana, I’ve said before that the President understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing especially terminal diseases and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them.  And that’s one that Congress, through a rider in 2011 — looking for a little help — I think put in an appropriations bill saying the Department of Justice wouldn’t be funded to go after those folks.  

There is a big difference between that and recreational marijuana.  And I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing that we should be doing is encouraging people.  There is still a federal law that we need to abide by in terms of the medical — when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.  

So I think there’s a big difference between medical marijuana, which states have a — the states where it’s allowed, in accordance with the appropriations rider, have set forth a process to administer and regulate that usage, versus recreational marijuana.  That’s a very, very different subject.

Shannon.

Q    What does that mean in terms of policy?  A follow-up, Sean.  What does that mean in terms of policy?

MR. SPICER:  Shannon.  Glenn, this isn’t a TV program.  We’re going to —

Q    What is the Justice Department going to do?

MR. SPICER:  Okay, you don’t get to just yell out questions.  We’re going to raise our hands like big boys and girls.

Q    Why don’t you answer the question, though?

MR. SPICER:  Because it’s not your job to just yell out questions.  

Shannon, please go.

Q    Okay.  Well, first, on the manufacturing summit, was the AFL-CIO invited?  And then, yeah, I did want to follow up on this medical marijuana question.  So is the federal government then going to take some sort of action around this recreational marijuana in some of these states?

MR. SPICER:  Well, I think that’s a question for the Department of Justice. I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of it.  Because again, there’s a big difference between the medical use which Congress has, through an appropriations rider in 2014, made very clear what their intent was in terms of how the Department of Justice would handle that issue.  That’s very different than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice I think will be further looking into. 

I’m sorry, Shannon, what was the first part?

Q    Was the AFL-CIO invited to the manufacturing meeting today with the CFOs?  Because they are part of this manufacturing —

MR. SPICER:  Right.  I think this was just focused on people who actually — they were not, I don’t believe, part of this one.  As you know, that we’ve had union representation at other meetings.  I think this was specifically for people who are hiring people and the impediments that they’re having to create additional jobs, hire more people.  And obviously, while the President values their opinion — and that’s why they’ve been involved in some of the past — this was specifically a manufacturing — people who hire people, who manufacture, who grow the economy, who grow jobs.  And that is a vastly different situation.

SOURCE

the first-ever patent for a plant containing significant amounts of THC

Terpenes and Testing Magazine

You know that strain you love? The one that a breeder managed to hone perfectly over the years? We are at a point in the industry where that strain that you love could be locked up by big business. The theft of a clone or tissue, biopiracy, could destroy decades of hard work with no mention of where it came from.

Why? Big business is knocking on the door of the cannabis industry, bringing with them the specter of plant patents.

There have already been a few U.S. patents related to cannabis over the years. The one that caught the attention of everyone in the cannabis business came in the form of U.S. patent 9,095,554, a 145-page utility patent filed in August 2015 by the BioTech Institute in Westlake, California on the breeding, production, processing and use of specialty cannabis.

The document lists dizzying details of the chemical structures of both CBD and THC, their uses, planting and harvesting for cannabis, along with dozens of charts only a scientist could understand. It’s being hailed as the first-ever patent for a plant containing significant amounts of THC.

BioTech has filed the first patent on a broad range of cannabis, with various forms and concentrations of CBD and/or THC, and just about every form of cannabis including extracts and edibles.

It’s a shot across the bow in a multi-billion-dollar industry blissfully unaware—or unaccepting—that the cannabis business is moving into big agriculture territory. Big money attracts big players. Those big players want to own, protect and have recourse to take legal action against any other big company challenging the breeding, growing and selling of their product.

For cannabis business owners, it’s becoming clear that it’s time to circle the wagons and find out what needs to be done to protect the intellectual property represented by their plant and processes. All while carefully eyeing the moves of big agriculture.

It’s time to add patent lawyer fees and filing fees to the list of costs for running a cannabis business.

The hard reality is, for most breeders and growers, it’s already too late. If they’ve sold a strain a year or longer ago, it’s now in the public domain and therefore can’t be patented.

“Patents are not a threat,” says Dale Hunt, a patent attorney working in biotechnology. “In this young industry, patents are viewed that way. They are only a threat if they are in the hands of a big agricultural company. But they are also a shield. A patent can actually be a sword and a shield.”

If Monsanto gets into the cannabis business—an unconfirmed but common fear if federal legalization occurs—they will definitely have patents on the plant. “People need to realize that, ‘OK, if we can’t stop them from getting into it, we can’t stop them from patenting, do we figure out how to engage, how to defend ourselves using the same tools?’” Hunt expressed.

“We have found out that a lot of people are terrified about big agriculture when it comes to patents,” Mowgli Holmes, Co-Founder and CSO for Phylos Bioscience, added. “But even little breeders want to patent too. We thought that patents on cannabis were bad altogether, but once you start talking to breeders, you realize that they want and need protection.” Phylos is an agricultural genomics company based in Portland, Oregon focusing on cannabis studies.

Hunt explained that some in the industry just want it to be a kind of “patent-free” zone. “And that is just not an option.”

There are a couple of ways to patent a new strain. For example, one can be obtained on an individual strain with a simple plant patent, available through the USPTO. This offers a narrow form of protection against a direct copying of that strain. “Plant patents cost about $5,000 to file and might cost $5,000 in lawyer fees,” Holmes shared. “So they are affordable.”

The utility patent, like the one granted to BioTech, is a patent where an applicant persuaded the examiner that the certain combinations of biochemical and genetic properties were new, and provided various strains that have those properties.

“What is important to understand about that utility patent is that it is not limited to any particular strain,” Hunt explained. “It’s limited to only that combination of properties. And that patent is valid only if that combination of properties never really existed before. A big part of the challenge is: Who knows? Where is the prior art? There is a great and unusual vacuum of knowledge of what is really out there. It may well be that what is before the examiner is not new at all.”

That utility patent could, in effect, end the development of other, more diverse strains if they exhibit the same combination of properties as listed in that patent. “Our position now is that utility patents are being granted, and it’s pretty damn clear that those are not good for the industry,” Holmes said. “They are innovation killing, destructive patents. And if the industry wants to survive, they need to fight them.”

Sadly, there are only more patents coming, “I think they already granted the second one for the same group, and I think that they have several others in the pipeline,” Holmes recounted.

To fight cannabis plant patenting, the Open Cannabis Project was created recently to build a prior art database. The database lists the DNA sequence of thousands of strains that are already out in the public domain and, by doing that, making those particular strains unavailable to be patented by any one person or corporation.

Both Hunt and Holmes are working on that project now.

“That is important because it’s the only possible way to fight a patent on a specific plant,” Holmes said. “We need to get a lot of testing labs to donate their testing data, because that chemical data and what chemical compounds are in the plant is what that 2015 utility patent rested on. If we had done that a year earlier—if we provided that prior art data—I don’t think they could have gotten that patent.”

What could happen now? Hunt gives an example of a mom-and-pop breeder that develops a great strain. “As the industry gets bigger and more lucrative, how are they going to protect that strain from someone grabbing it, and propagating it as their strain?” he concluded. “The mindset that patents are bad is not one that will serve people well in this burgeoning industry.”

CONTINUE READING…

The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (2017)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS HAS RELEASED A NEW RESEARCH BOOK REGARDING THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF CANNABIS.  PLEASE USE LINK PROVIDED TO REVIEW.

 

The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research

 

Description

Significant changes have taken place in the policy landscape surrounding cannabis legalization, production, and use. During the past 20 years, 25 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis and/or cannabidiol (a component of cannabis) for medical conditions or retail sales at the state level and 4 states have legalized both the medical and recreational use of cannabis. These landmark changes in policy have impacted cannabis use patterns and perceived levels of risk.

However, despite this changing landscape, evidence regarding the short- and long-term health effects of cannabis use remains elusive. While a myriad of studies have examined cannabis use in all its various forms, often these research conclusions are not appropriately synthesized, translated for, or communicated to policy makers, health care providers, state health officials, or other stakeholders who have been charged with influencing and enacting policies, procedures, and laws related to cannabis use. Unlike other controlled substances such as alcohol or tobacco, no accepted standards for safe use or appropriate dose are available to help guide individuals as they make choices regarding the issues of if, when, where, and how to use cannabis safely and, in regard to therapeutic uses, effectively.

Shifting public sentiment, conflicting and impeded scientific research, and legislative battles have fueled the debate about what, if any, harms or benefits can be attributed to the use of cannabis or its derivatives, and this lack of aggregated knowledge has broad public health implications. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids provides a comprehensive review of scientific evidence related to the health effects and potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis. This report provides a research agenda—outlining gaps in current knowledge and opportunities for providing additional insight into these issues—that summarizes and prioritizes pressing research needs.

Topics

 

CONCLUSIONS FOR: THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS
There is conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective:
• For the treatment for chronic pain in adults (cannabis) (4-1)
• Antiemetics in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (oral cannabinoids) (4-3)
• For improving patient-reported multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms (oral cannabinoids) (4-7a)
There is moderate evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for:
• Improving short-term sleep outcomes in individuals with sleep disturbance associated with obstructive sleep apnea
syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and multiple sclerosis (cannabinoids, primarily nabiximols) (4-19)
There is limited evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for:
• Increasing appetite and decreasing weight loss associated with HIV/AIDS (cannabis and oral cannabinoids) (4-4a)
• Improving clinician-measured multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms (oral cannabinoids) (4-7a)
• Improving symptoms of Tourette syndrome (THC capsules) (4-8)
• Improving anxiety symptoms, as assessed by a public speaking test, in individuals with social anxiety disorders (cannabidiol)
(4-17)
• Improving symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (nabilone; one single, small fair-quality trial) (4-20)
There is limited evidence of a statistical association between cannabinoids and:
• Better outcomes (i.e., mortality, disability) after a traumatic brain injury or intracranial hemorrhage (4-15)
There is limited evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are ineffective for:
• Improving symptoms associated with dementia (cannabinoids) (4-13)
• Improving intraocular pressure associated with glaucoma (cannabinoids) (4-14)
• Reducing depressive symptoms in individuals with chronic pain or multiple sclerosis (nabiximols, dronabinol, and nabilone)
(4-18)

PLEASE CONTINUE TO LINK HERE

How The ‘Cannabis Catch-22’ Keeps Marijuana Classified As A Harmful Drug

 

Marijuana grows in the home of two medical marijuana patients in Medford, Ore.

America has a long and storied history with marijuana. Once grown by American colonists to make hemp rope, by 1970, it was classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic. Possession of it was — and is — a federal crime, despite the fact that in recent years 25 states have legalized medical marijuana and four states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for recreational use.

Author John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, traces the history of America’s laws and attitudes toward cannabis in his new book, Marijuana: A Short History. He tells Fresh Air‘s Dave Davies that the recent shift in public policy is, in part, a recognition of the drug’s medicinal value, which became apparent in San Francisco during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s.

“People were saying, ‘If I smoke this and I get the munchies, maybe it will help people dying of AIDS who are so nauseated that they can’t eat and they’re dealing with clinical anorexia as a result of that,’ ” Hudak explains.

The grass-roots movement turned political, and in 1996, California became the first state to pass a medical marijuana ballot initiative. Other states followed, though the impetus for the movement grew beyond the medicinal.

“One significant argument in favor of adult use marijuana that not many people talk about is a simple one, and that is some people just like to get high,” Hudak says. “I think in this policy debate, oftentimes seeing marijuana as a recreational product, it is frowned upon to discuss it, but it’s a reality. People enjoy it like people enjoy wine or people enjoy a good steak.”


Interview Highlights

On Harry Anslinger, who played a pivotal role in the effort to criminalize marijuana

Harry Anslinger was the nation’s first real drug czar. He came from the Bureau of Prohibition and was put in charge of a variety of federal government agencies that changed names over the course of time, but were effectively the precursors for the Drug Enforcement [Administration].

He was essentially the J. Edgar Hoover of drugs in the United States. He had the same types of tactics that Hoover had — that was being very aggressive with Congress, going into the media to try to advance his political and policy interests. He had, by all accounts, details and histories of members of Congress and senators that they did not want to become public, and he was a one-man force in expanding drug prohibition in the United States. He did this for a variety of drugs, but he had a special place in his heart for marijuana.

On how marijuana use was made into a racial issue

Anslinger brought to it this real racialized aspect. I mean, he was an absolute avowed racist, and when you look at the letters he wrote to different civic organizations or op-eds that he published, or even congressional testimony, it is riddled with racist language and racist claims about the use of marijuana really being only in Mexican communities in the Southwest, and then eventually it transitioned to be a product that was used by the individuals who were around jazz music, which of course was code language for the African-American community.

And so proceeded this racialized history, and [Anslinger] … claimed that marijuana would turn people into psychopaths, murderers, rapists — it would make women promiscuous, particularly promiscuous around men of color, and this was seen as something that was brought into communities by people of color in order to make the most vulnerable in society behave in ways that would appall society.

On government efforts to suppress studies that showed that marijuana was not as addictive or dangerous as had been claimed

In the 1970s President Nixon commissioned the former governor of Pennsylvania, Ray Shafer, who was a good friend, a fellow Republican, a good friend of Nixon’s, to commission this report about this evil drug infecting society, and Shafer came up, again, with the same answers — it wasn’t as addicting, that there were reasons to try to think about this drug in different ways than the federal government was thinking about it, that it wasn’t causing violent crime.

Shafer was actually called into the Oval Office and read off by the president for this draft report, and [Nixon] said to Shafer, “You cannot publish this.” And Shafer stood his ground. He said, “I’m publishing it.” And Nixon trashed that.

It was just this extended period of president after president asking for answers, not getting the answers that he liked, and then throwing the report away.

On what led to policy change for use of marijuana

This really began in the Castro District of San Francisco in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The AIDS epidemic was … ravaging this community, and it was one that individuals, I think, looked at this product that was largely being used recreationally and understood that it helped with pain relief.

So you had a few individuals — Dennis Peron is one; a woman named Brownie Mary who was an orderly at a hospital in San Francisco who would bake brownies laced with marijuana and deliver them to AIDS patients each day. This community popped up around delivering medical cannabis for those who are dying.

And it wasn’t only people dying of AIDS, it was people who had a variety of ailments — and that grass-roots, underground, even though it was pretty much in the daylight for some time, movement transitioned into a political one, and in 1996 California became the first state to pass a medical marijuana ballot initiative.

On arguments in favor of legalization

We have 750,000 arrests in a year that have to do with marijuana. And so in communities of color that criminal justice argument is a tremendous one. For libertarians you talk about personal liberty and privacy and property rights, and that is an important issue for them. For conservatives or liberals who are interested in balancing the budget, talking about all of the law enforcement dollars that are spent on the prosecution and investigation of marijuana crimes in a year, that’s budget savings, as well as revenue in the door on the tax side.

For others, it is about product safety, understanding that a regulatory system is going to be able to test the product and you’ll know exactly as a consumer what you’re getting, whereas on the black market you don’t know that.

On the federal government’s decision this past summer to continue the Schedule 1 classification of marijuana

One of the reasons for the maintenance of marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance was that the medical community is not convinced of its medical value. There are plenty of doctors who believe that there is medical value to marijuana, they’re willing to recommend it to patients, but the threshold required to demonstrate medical value for the medical community as a whole is much higher than it is for the reform community.

There is this cannabis Catch-22 and it is, as a Schedule 1 drug, it is very difficult to do research on the plant. There are only certain researchers who will get the certification and licensure necessary to handle the drug. Then, of course, you need the funding to study it. You need approval from university institutional review boards, and the burdens that exist to do the type of research on a Schedule 1 drug are tremendous. But that research is what will inform the medical community as to its medical use, and so what you need and what you can do are entirely prevented by this federal government policy.

CONTINUE READING INTERVIEW…

The DEA is looking for candidates to grow marijuana for research – but will it find any takers?

Wanted: Someone to grow marijuana for the federal government. Benefits: A contract likely worth millions and the chance to enable medical research. Requirements: Ability to deal with the costs and regulations that come with growing an illegal drug for the federal government.

For more than four decades, the University of Mississippi has had an exclusive license with the government to grow marijuana for federally sanctioned research. But this month, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced it would grant permission to other growers — an effort, it said, to expand the supply and variety of marijuana available for research.

So has the change set off a gold rush to grow the green? Not exactly.

STAT contacted almost a dozen agricultural schools, including those with industrial hemp programs, to gauge their eagerness to grow marijuana for the government.

Not interested, said Cornell University, the University of Kentucky, and Virginia Tech. Ditto, said Michigan State University, the University of Vermont, and Western Kentucky University.

No plans, said University of California, Davis, and University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Same with Colorado State University, Oregon State University, and Purdue University.

“We are very boring that way,” Janna Beckerman, a plant pathologist who researches hemp at Purdue, wrote in an email.

Some interested groups could be keeping their plans under wraps. And other possible candidates may be trying to get a better sense of what the DEA wants. But any reluctance might stem from more than being boring.

More on this…

To register with the agency, applicants will need to show that they will have security measures in place to protect the marijuana and be willing to comply with a host of other requirements. And depending on the scale of the operation, prospective growers will likely have to make significant investments to get it up and running.

Bob Morgan, an attorney at Much Shelist who formerly led the Illinois medical marijuana program, said that facilities in states that have strict regulations on medical marijuana growers are probably looking at multimillion-dollar expenditures for construction alone.

“I think everybody is just thinking about how to approach this,” said Dr. Igor Grant, director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, San Diego. “What will it really take to get one of these DEA licenses?”

Grant said he would consider talking with other universities and agencies in California to see if it was worth the effort to get a cultivation operation in the state, but beyond that had not heard of groups intending to apply.

One researcher in the running is Lyle Craker, who studies medicinal plants at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and has tried in the past to get approval to grow marijuana. He did not reply to an email requesting comment, but a spokesman for a group called the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies — which sponsors related research — said it is supporting Craker’s efforts to get a license, as it has in the past.

Other possible applicants include independent growers who operate in states where medical and recreational marijuana is legal. Some cultivators have an expertise in running a large-scale marijuana facility — with state-of-the-art practices and security measures and experience dealing with state regulators — that in theory might appeal to federal authorities.

But the fact is, their existence contravenes federal law.

In a memo announcing the policy change, acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg said that it would consider whether applicants have “engaged in illegal activity involving controlled substances … regardless of whether such activity is permissible under state law.” While that doesn’t disqualify current cultivators, policy experts and people in the industry say the DEA won’t look highly upon them.

“They made it very clear that if you have been in violation of the [Controlled Substances Act], that would be weighted heavily against you,” said Rachel Gillette, an attorney at Greenspoon Marder in Colorado who represents marijuana businesses.

That might not stop people from trying, though.

Charlie Bachtell is the CEO and founder of Cresco Labs, which grows medical marijuana at three sites in Illinois. Bachtell said he is considering applying to the DEA because he wants to support research that could show marijuana has medical benefits.

“The future of this industry definitely starts with research,” Bachtell said. “The opportunity to help progress the acceptance, the elevation, and the professionalism of the medical cannabis industry really starts with research.”

The DEA’s policy change also opened the door to a new group of candidates: drug makers. While the Mississippi marijuana is funneled to academic research, Rosenberg wrote that marijuana can now be grown “for strictly commercial endeavors … aimed at drug product development.”

GW Pharmaceuticals, a company that is developing a drug for epilepsy from a component of marijuana called cannabidiol, said it has not made a decision about a growing facility in the United States, but remained vague enough to suggest possible interest. The company makes the drug, Epidiolex, in the United Kingdom, where it is based.

“We are exploring additional growing facilities in places around the world,” the company said in a statement.

The DEA’s application process is open, but the agency has set no deadline to select growers. The agency has indicated it wants just enough marijuana to be produced so research demands are met, but not more than that.

“It could be that two years from now, we still only have one registrant,” said Alex Kreit, an expert on marijuana law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

Even if cultivators gets licenses, they will confront a chicken-and-egg quandary: If they get special approval to grow marijuana, where do they get the supply they need to start it?

They could obtain marijuana from the University of Mississippi, but that would defeat the purpose of trying to expand the genetic variety of plants available. Or they could get seeds and plants from another country, such as Canada or Israel, with the proper permits.

An existing grower could also surrender some marijuana to law enforcement, which could then hand it over to a newly registered grower.

For its part, a spokesman wrote in an email that that the DEA “would require manufacturers to obtain their seeds from a lawful source, and the DEA would assist the new manufacturers in this regard.”

CONTINUE READING…

Marijuana studies

Craker is known for proposing that medical grade marijuana be available for scientific studies into its possible health benefits. Since the marijuana available for studies is too weak for any kind of medical study, he proposed that medical grade marijuanna be made available for research purposes. He has been named in many newspapers on this subject. The federal government refuses to give him a license to grow medical grade marijuana. On April 29, 2009, Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry wrote a letter to the Honorable David W. Ogden urging the Deputy Attorney General to delay a final decision on the application by Lyle E. Craker of the University of Massachusetts Amherst to produce research-grade marijuana for use in federally approved clinical trials[3][2][4][5]

Cannabis strains that help certain ailments and diseases from 420.ag

 

 

1966776_678729982189031_1533101949_n

 

Here is a list of cannabis strains with ailments and diseases that each strain is said to help specifically for. If you have a degenerative or other type of disease, these strains may help!

Afghani = Emotional Stability
Afghanica = Nausea, Pain
AFGHANIE X HAZE = PMS, Lower Body Pain
Afghooie x Haze = PMS
AK-47 = Pain, Nausea, Depression, Insomnia, Headache
Alien Train Wreck = Asthma
Apollo 13 = Back Pain
Auntie Em = Crohn’s Disease, MS
AURORA B = Nausea, Joint Pain, Arthritis
Aurora Indica = Nausea, joint pain, arthritis
Berry-Bolt = Insomnia, Joint pain
Big Bang = Stress, Anxiety, Sedation
Big Kahuna = Back Pain, Arthritis, Herniated disc pain
BillieJack = ADD’s
Black Domina = Emotional Stability
Black on Blue Widow = HIV, Back pain
Black Vietnamese = Nausea, Muscle Spasms, Pain
Black/Blue Widow = HIV/AIDS, Back Pain
Blackberry = Digestive Disorders
Blackberry’s mother = Nausea, Joint Pain, Arthritis, HIV
Blue Fruit = Crohns Disease, Muscle spasms
Blue Moon Rocks = Anxiety, Depression, Insomnia
Blue Satellite = Pain, Nausea, Anxiety, Muscle Tension, Insomnia
Blue Satellite x Jack Herer = Depression, Nausea
Blueberry = Nausea, Insomnia, Pain
Bog Sour Bubble = Pain, Anxiety
Bonzo Bud = Body pain, Migraine
Bubble Gum = Fibromyalgia
Budacolumbia = Nausea
Burmaberry = Migraine, Depression
Burmese = Pain
Burmese pure = Anxiety, Depression
C99 x Great White Shark = Anxiety
Cali-O = Nausea
Cambodian x Orange Pekoe = Cerebral, Alert
Catalyst = PMS
Chronic = Muscle Spasms, Appetite Stimulant, Anti-emetic
Cinderella 99 = Epilepsy, MS, Nausea
CIT = Insomnia, Pain, Nausea
Citral = Insomnia
Cripple Creek = Hepatitis C, Degenerative Disc Disease, IBS, Interstitial Cystitis, Chronic Rotator Cuff Disease, HIV/AIDS
Deep Chunk = Joint Pain, Insomnia
Dynamite = Asthma, Crohn’s Disease, Hepatitis C
East Coast Sour Diesel = Epilepsy, Fibromyalgia, Radiculopathy
El Nino = Nausea, Insomnia
Fieldale Haze = Anxiety, Back pain
Fig Widow = Back pain, Psychosis
Firecracker = Depression, Anxiety, Nausea
G-13 = Depression, Pain, ADD, ADHD
G13 x HP = Nausea, Joint Pain, Insomnia
Grapefruit = Arthritis, Hepatitis C, Pain, Nausea
Green Queen = Epilepsy, Neck/spine pain
Green Spirit = Nausea, Headache, Body pain
Green Spirit x Timewarp x Herijuana = Insomnia, Migraine, Joint pain
Haze = ADD/ADHD
Heavenly Man = Stress
Herijuana = Pain, Nausea, Insomnia
Herijuana x Trainwreck = Diabetic neuropathy, Joint pain, Insomnia, MS
Hindu Kush = Social Anxiety
Ice Princess x Bubblegum = Migraine
Jack Herer = Anxiety, Fibromyalgia
Jacked #14 = Nausea
John Paul Jones = Body pain
Juicy Fruit = Insomnia, Joint pain, Anxiety
Kali Mist = Nausea, Depression
Kal-X = Body pain
KILLER QUEEN = Depression, Back Pain
Killer Queen = Depression, Back pain
Krinkle x Kush x Freezeland = MS muscle spasms
Lavender = Chronic Pain
Leda Uno = Insomnia
Legends Ultimate Indica = Insomnia, IBS, CROHN’S DISEASE, Joint/Muscle Pain
Legends Ultimate Indica x Herijuana = Muscle spasms, Pain
Lemon Chemo = Insomnia, Back pain, Migraine
Lemon Haze = Fibromyalgia
Lifesaver = Nausea, Headache, Pain, Insomnia
Lollipop = Cachexia, Degenerative bone and disc disease, Edema, General pain, General seizures, Glaucoma, Migraine, MS, Nausea, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Lowryder = Nausea, Pain, Headache
LSD = Nausea, Anxiety, Depression, Headache
M39 = Anxiety, Depression
Magic Crystal = Migraine, PMS, Depression, Nausea
Mango = Back pain, nausea
Mango x Northern Lights # 5 = Pain, nausea, insomnia, anxiety
Master Kush = Nausea
Medicine Woman = Diabetic neuropathy, general pain, general seizures, glaucoma, Hepatitis C, muscle spasms, nausea, radiculopathy
Misty = Hepatitis C, back pain, insomnia, nausea
Mountainberry = Insomnia, migraine, pain
Mr. Nice = Chronic Pain, Muscle Spasms
New York Diesel = Migraine
NL#5 = Social Anxiety
Northern Lights #1 = Arthritis
Northern Lights #2 = Nausea, insomnia
Northern Lights = Anxiety, radiculopathy, insomnia
Northern Lights x Cinderella 99 = Depression
Northern Lights x Jamaican = Arthritis
Northern Lights x Shiva = Pain, Toothache
NORTHERNBERRY = General Pain
NYC SOUR DIESEL = Edema, Epilepsy, Fibromyalgia, Radiculopathy
Oak Goo = Pain, anxiety
OG Kush = Social Anxiety
OG KUSH PURPLE = Leg Pain, Knee, Butt Pain
Oregon 90 = Joint Pain, RLS, Pain, Nausea, Insomnia
Original Mystic = Epilepsy
Phaght Betty = Cachexia, degenerative bone/disc disease, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Purple Kush = Stress, Anxiety
Queen Bee = Neck/spine pain
Reeferman’s Hash Plant = Chronic Pain
Romulan = Chronic Pain
Sensi Star = Migraine, PMS, Back Pain
Shiskaberry x Dutch Treat = Migraine, anxiety, insomnia, nausea
Shiskaberry x Hash Plant = Anxiety, nausea
Skunk #1 = Nausea
Slow Train = Back Pain
Snow White = PMS, Head aches
Sonoma Coma = General Relaxation, Induce Sleep
SOUR CREAM = Insomnia, Joint Pain, Nausea
Stardust 13 = Pain, nausea, insomnia
Strawberry Cough = Back pain, depression
Super Impact = Nausea, insomnia, muscle pain, depression, anxiety
Super Impact x AK-47 = Pain, insomnia, mood
Super Silver Haze = Nausea, depression, RLS, Arthritis, Bladder Problems
Super Thai = Depression
Swamp Mix = Depression
Sweet Blu = Degenerative bone/disc disease, diabetic, neuropathy, edema, fibromyalgia, muscle spasms, nausea, neck/spine pain
Sweet Tooth #3 = Depression, mood
Trainwreck = Anxiety, Arthritis, Diabetic Neuropathy, Depression
Trainwreck x Herijuana = Nausea, Anxiety, arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, depression
TW x LUI = Arthritis, nausea
TX = Arthritis, asthma, general pain, general seizures, glaucoma, MS
Ty’s Northernberry x Reeferman’s Herijuana = Appetite Stimulant, Spasms
UBC Chemo x Grapefruit = Muscle/Joint Pain
Ultra Green = Insomnia
Wakeford = Anxiety, nausea, insomnia
White Rhino = Body pain, back pain, joint pain, insomnia
White Russian = Pain, nausea
White Russian x AK47 x White Widow = Chronic Pain, Insomnia
White Widow = Cachexia, Hepatitis C, PTSD
White Widow x Big Bud = Depression, White Widow, Cachexia, Hepatitis C, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Wisp = Nausea, headache
WR = Muscle pain, nausea, insomnia
XXX = General Relaxation, Sleep

Please keep in mind that this is not to be considered as “medical advice” as the information given in this article is intended to be for informational purposes only, and is not intended to claim any specific cure of any ailment or disease through the specified strains, but is to be considered more of a guideline to help you decide what might be best for you in choosing the best strain for you.

CONTINUE READING….

Ellen Brown Asks if Monsanto Will Win The War On Weed

Corbett • 07/11/2016 • 4 Comments

 

Voter initiatives like California’s “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” have many celebrating the legalization of the long-demonised plant. But as Ellen Brown writes in her new article, “The ‘War on Weed’ Is Winding Down – But Will Monsanto/Bayer Be the Winner?” the push toward legalization is being steered by corporate interests for potential profit, not a concern for public health.

 

gmo weed

Published on Jul 11, 2016

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=19204
Voter initiatives like California’s “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” have many celebrating the legalization of the long-demonized plant. But as Ellen Brown writes in her new article, “The ‘War on Weed’ Is Winding Down – But Will Monsanto/Bayer Be the Winner?” the push toward legalization is being steered by corporate interests for potential profit, not a concern for public health.

CONTINUE READING ….

CENSORSHIP: THE 1947 MEDICAL CANNABIS STUDY COVERUP

By Erin Elizabeth

June 24, 2016

Government Censorship

 

(Editor’s note: The Antique Cannabis Book is a free resource on the internet and houses “over  600 2,000 Pre-1937 Medical Cannabis Products Documented;—a Great Resource book for the Antique Cannabis Collector”. But don’t think of it just as a picture book, it’s also an amazing resource. It would take me too long to paraphrase all the info on this particular topic so I’ll present it to you here. Yes, it’s long, but it’s worth the read. Enjoy. XO- Erin)

This section of the Antique Cannabis Book, was meant primarily as a tool for active News Media Reporters who needed a quick (yet well documented) source of information on the subject of Governmental Censorship as it relates to Medical Cannabis. As such this (1947) study, which was openly published and never actually under the threat of censorship, would normally not qualify for inclusion.

However, a quick look beneath the surface shows a different story. One that reveals, wheels within wheels, circles within circles, all spinning around . . . . let’s just say that this study, came very close to (ah, how shall we put it), going the way of oh so many other Medical Cannabis studies.

The author is convinced that had Anslinger (or anyone at the D.E.A.) known about the study BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED , it most assuredly would have been CENSORED.   Either that or (doing what the Narc’s do now), killed it in its cradle by simply denying the researchers the needed licenses and permits.

This one however, seems to have slipped though the cracks. Here let us go over the facts (those we’ve been able to locate), and let the reader to decide.

1.1 – STUDY SUMMARY
The following, located via 420 Magazine [1] Cannabis Works. ”

Anti-Epileptic Action Of Marijuana-Active Substances BY JEAN P. DAVIS, M.D., and H.H. RAMSEY, M.D. [2]

 

PLEASE CONTINUE READING THROUGH THIS LINK!

ANTIQUE CANNABIS BOOK ONLINE

Two senators held a hearing of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics to determine if the Justice Department is neglecting its duty to enforce federal marijuana laws. Only anti-pot activists and those opposed to legalization were invited to testify.

Senators hold a ‘one-sided prohibitionist party’ – marijuana activists

Published time: 6 Apr, 2016 01:27

Get short URL

© Ruptly

© Ruptly

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = “[default] http://www.w3.org/2000/svg&#8221; NS = “http://www.w3.org/2000/svg&#8221; />

Two senators held a hearing of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics to determine if the Justice Department is neglecting its duty to enforce federal marijuana laws. Only anti-pot activists and those opposed to legalization were invited to testify.

Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California) may be on opposite sides of the political aisle, but they are on the same page when it comes to opposing marijuana legalization as co-chairs of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics.

Despite representing a state that has legalized medical marijuana, Senator Feinstein authored letters to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State John Kerry last year to point out, “It is our understanding that no one in the Justice Department has initiated a centralized effort to measure the overall effect of these laws,” the LA Times reported.

Guns & ganja: Alaska asks DoJ to revise regulations for users of guns & medical marijuana

The ironically named Senator Grassley, who opposes changing weed from a Schedule I to a Schedule II drug, recently told the Des Moines Register, “Recent studies suggest marijuana use by young people can cause long-term and possibly permanent damage to brain development.

Joining them at the hearing were Sam B. Wagner, a federal prosecutor with a history of prosecuting low-level marijuana crimes; Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, who unsuccessfully attempted to sue Colorado over their legalization of marijuana in the Supreme Court; and Kathryn Wells, a pediatrician on the Science Advisory Board of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-marijuana group that envisions a society where “commercialization and normalization of marijuana are no more.

Offering a counterpoint to the one-sided group was… no one. A press release from the Drug Policy Alliance, a group advocating for drug policy reform, called the hearings a “one-sided prohibitionist party.

The points raised by the hearing’s speakers and participants sounded like those that might be made at a DARE meeting, though even that prominent drug-free organization has backed off its anti-marijuana campaigns.

Grassley argued that marijuana is a gateway drug, connecting it to the heroin and opioid epidemic currently ravaging much of the US.

Last year, the Centers for Disease Control found that people who are addicted to marijuana are three times more likely to be addicted to heroin. So if the Obama Administration is serious about addressing this epidemic, it should stop burying its head in the sand about what’s happening to its enforcement priorities on recreational marijuana,” Grassley said.

However, the Washington Post points out that, as a result of marijuana’s potentially pain relieving properties, broadening accessibility to pot could reduce the need for painkilling drugs, possibly reducing the related risk of addiction and overdoses.

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson said that Colorado’s recreational and medicinal legalization are negatively affecting his state’s youth.

I can tell you story after story of… high school students gathering up their money and sending a buyer into Colorado and bringing [marijuana] edibles back or bringing the product back,” he said.

Data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) contradicts those claims. SAMHSA found that from 2012 to 2014, marijuana usage in Nebraska declined among teens. In 2012, Colorado voted to pass Amendment 64, a measure that legalized the sale of marijuana for recreational use to adults aged 21 years or older.

California, Arizona, Nevada, and Massachusetts are also going to the polls to vote on similar legalization this year. With Colorado’s pot industry raking in just under $1 billion in 2015 alone, the pro-marijuana side may not have needed to attend the Senate’s caucus on international narcotics.

CONTINUE READING…

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…