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…

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/

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…

U.S.: Congressman Blumenauer Writes Open Letter To President About Marijuana

Tue, 01/12/2016 – 22:24 – steveelliott

EarlBlumenauer(Congressman-D-OR)[LadyBud]

By Steve Elliott
Hemp News

Congressman Earl Blumenauer on Tuesday wrote an open letter advocating marijuana legalization to President Obama in advance of the President’s State of the Union speech.

"As you begin your last year in office, I hope there is one more step you take to bring about fundamental change — ending the failed policy of marijuana prohibition and removing marijuana from the list of Controlled Substances," Rep. Blumenauer wrote to the President.

The language chosen by Rep. Blumenauer is very significant, politically speaking. "Removing marijuana from the list of Controlled Substances" is, of course, the only way forward that avoids cannabis being immediately co-opted and controlled by Big Pharma, which is assuredly what will happen if it is moved from Schedule I to Schedule II or III on the Uniformed Controlled Substances Act.

Following is Rep. Blumenauer’s letter in its entirety.

An Open Letter to the President

Dear Mr. President:

A State of the Union speech is a unique opportunity to address Congress and the nation about priorities and accomplishments, as well as to highlight critical issues.

I remember another speech in May 2008 when you spoke to over 70,000 Portlanders. The overwhelming feeling of hope coming from the crowd was palpable.

Tonight, you will undoubtedly reflect on the last seven years. During this time, you fulfilled your promise of systematic change while dealing with the largest economic disaster the United States has seen since the Great Depression and almost unanimous Republican obstruction in Congress. Your actions jumpstarting the economy, reforming health care and Wall Street, and providing critical leadership on climate change will be felt for generations to come.

As you begin your last year in office, I hope there is one more step you take to bring about fundamental change — ending the failed policy of marijuana prohibition and removing marijuana from the list of Controlled Substances.

We both know the prohibition of marijuana has not and will not work. Recent surveys find that 18 million adults used marijuana in the past month — and well over a million use it legally under state laws for medicinal purposes. Despite dire hyperbolic warnings and the threat of citation, arrest, or even prison, all evidence indicates Americans will continue to use marijuana, especially since younger Americans feel even stronger that it ought to be legal. They understand that, while not without risk, marijuana is certainly less dangerous than tobacco — which is legal in every state despite its highly addictive nature and proven deadly consequences. Indeed, if we were scheduling drugs today, tobacco would probably be classified as Schedule I and marijuana would be left off.

I suspect that both your heart and your head tell you ending prohibition is the right thing to do, especially from a civil rights and criminal justice perspective. We’ve undercut respect for the law, wasted law enforcement resources, and more important, wasted lives.

A shocking 620,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession in 2014. No area is more stark and unfair than the treatment of African Americans — particularly young men. Research shows they are no more likely to use marijuana, yet the heavy hand of the law descends upon them with a vengeance. Depending on where they live, African Americans are two to eight times more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana, according to a study by the ACLU. Unlike white middle class Americans, for young men of color — especially if poor — even a minor infraction can have devastating consequences. They can be forced from their family home if they are living in public housing, or have difficulty obtaining federal student loans to make it nearly impossible to attend college.

This is wrong.

Current federal policy declares marijuana has no medicinal value and implies it is more dangerous than methamphetamine or cocaine. I don’t believe that any member of your Administration believes this is true. Yet inaction creates another serious consequence — an inability to focus on real threats to public health. Cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and opioids are all far more dangerous than marijuana. In 2013 alone, over 20,000 people died of prescription drug overdoses — while there have never been any reported marijuana overdose fatalities.

This is also wrong. By telling Americans something demonstrably false, the case and credibility of drug enforcement authorities at all levels is weakened.

Not only that, federal policy has placed a stranglehold on effective marijuana research — even as evidence continues to mount about its medicinal benefits. Medical marijuana patients receive relief of pain, suppression of nausea, and the control of symptoms of neurological disorders. Recognizing this, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have legalized medical marijuana, and 17 other states have authorized some form of medical marijuana. Removing federal barriers to research will help eliminate the guess work about both its benefits and potential problems.

For all the talk about gateway drugs, having millions of Americans relying on the black market for marijuana only opens the way for thugs to directly market to young people and those desperate to deal with depression and pain. No drug dealer checks for ID on the street corner or schoolyard. They have no license to lose and every incentive to sell other more dangerous, addictive and profitable drugs.

The vast underground network supplying millions of Americans can and should be transformed into a legal industry that is regulated and taxed. We continue to enrich Mexican drug cartels that use marijuana as one of the pillars of their financial model. We should instead be taxing and regulating marijuana to help balance the budget and fund important services. If we approach marijuana the same way as alcohol, we could take the billions of dollars we save in enforcement and additional billions that will be generated in tax revenue to deal with education, the protection of our children, and the treatment for people with addiction problems.

Mr. President, you’ve already had the most profound effect on marijuana law reform than any President in history. You’ve declined to interfere with states that have legalized adult use of marijuana and others states that allow medical marijuana, and you’ve provided breathing room for state-legal marijuana businesses.

It is time, Mr. President, for you to take the next logical step, cementing your legacy in history on drug reform and a fairer criminal justice system. Call for an end to marijuana prohibition and de-schedule marijuana. The House and Senate are reluctant to take bold action to legalize marijuana at the federal level, but you don’t have to wait. Under your leadership by de-scheduling marijuana, you will trigger monumental reform, allowing states to continue their pioneering efforts and putting pressure on Congress to take additional actions to tax and regulate. We can start by ending the lunacy of forcing legal marijuana companies to operate as cash-only. Seldom has such a small step, supported by a majority of Americans, had such potential transformational power.

Please seize the moment. We can’t wait.

The time is now. The country is ready.

In 2008, I joined with tens of thousands of Oregonians who cheered you on chanting, “Yes, we can!”

Today, I speak on behalf of millions of Americans across the country and ask you to support ending the prohibition of marijuana.

We hope you will respond, “Yes, I will.”

Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress

– See more at: http://crrh.org/news/node/6521#sthash.TEB7vmh3.dpuf

Woman advocating to change Idaho’s marijuana laws is charged

The Associated Press

Above: Picture from Facebook post, click for LINK

BOISE, Idaho

A woman advocating for changing Idaho’s marijuana laws at a rally in Boise is now facing misdemeanor charges.

The Idaho Statesman reports (http://is.gd/RlmlAz ) Serra Frank, who uses marijuana for medical reasons, had planned on smoking pot in public as a protest on Friday afternoon. But officers stopper her before she lit up.

Frank is director of the Mom Squad at Moms for Marijuana International.

Frank, who has interstitial cystitis, a painful bladder condition, says she wants Idaho to legalize medical marijuana. Frank chose to stay in Idaho and fight for legalization, while her stepdaughter and the girl’s father moved to California, so the family could try cannabis-based treatments for an illness the girl has developed.

After the rally, Frank was cited with possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia, then released. She is scheduled to appear in court on Jan. 19.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/living/health-and-medicine/article52755685.html#storylink=cpy

2015: The Year In Review – NORML’s Top 10 Events That Shaped Marijuana Policy

Tuesday, 29 December 2015

2015: The Year In Review - NORML's Top 10 Events That Shaped Marijuana Policy

#1 Congress Reauthorizes Medical Marijuana Protections
Members of Congress approved language in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus spending bill that continues to limit the federal government from taking punitive action against state-licensed individuals or operations that are acting are in full compliance with the medical marijuana laws of their states. The provisions reauthorize Section 538 of the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which states, "None of the funds made available in this act to the Department of Justice may be used … to prevent … states … from implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/12/17/congress-omnibus-spending-bill-reauthorizes-medical-marijuana-protections.

#2 Federal Judge Upholds Marijuana’s Schedule I Status
A federal judge in April rejected a motion challenging the constitutionality of cannabis’ classification as a Schedule I prohibited substance. "At some point in time, a court may decide this status to be unconstitutional," Judge Kimberly Mueller said from the bench. "But this is not the court and not the time." Judge Meuller had presided over five days of hearings in October 2014 in a challenge brought by members of the NORML Legal Committee. Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/04/16/federal-judge-upholds-marijuana-s-schedule-i-status.

#3 Medical Cannabis Access Associated With Less Opioid Abuse
States that permit qualified patients to access medical marijuana via dispensaries possess lower rates of opioid addiction and overdose deaths, according to a study published in July by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a non-partisan think-tank. The findings mirror those published in 2014 in The Journal of the American Medical Association concluding, "States with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8 percent lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate compared with states without medical cannabis laws." Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/07/16/study-medical-cannabis-access-associated-with-reduced-opioid-abuse.

#4 DC Depenalizes Marijuana; Arrests Plummet
Despite threats from members of Congress, District officials implemented voter-approved legislation earlier this year eliminating penalties associated with the possession and cultivation of personal use quantities of marijuana by adults. Following the law’s implementation, marijuana-related arrests in the nation’s capital fell 99 percent. Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/12/04/cities-see-major-decline-in-marijuana-possession-arrests.

#5 Marijuana Law Changes Don’t Change Youth Use, Attitudes
Rates of youth marijuana use are unaffected by changing laws, according to data published in July in The American Journal of drug and Alcohol Abuse. Investigators evaluated trends in young people’s attitudes toward cannabis and their use of the substance during the years 2002 to 2013 – a time period where 14 states enacted laws legalizing the medical use of the plant, and two states approved its recreational use by adults. "Our results may suggest that recent changes in public policy, including the decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization of marijuana in cities and states across the country, have not resulted in more use or greater approval of marijuana use among younger adolescents," researchers reported. Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/07/16/study-changes-in-state-marijuana-laws-are-not-associated-with-greater-use-or-acceptance-by-young-people.

#6 Gallup Poll: More Americans Than Ever Say Marijuana Should Be Legal
Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe that "the use of marijuana should be made legal," according to nationwide survey data released in October by Gallup pollsters. The percentage ties the highest level of support ever reported by Gallup, which has been measuring Americans’ attitudes toward cannabis since the late 1960s. The percentage is more than twice the level of support reported in the mid-1990s. Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/10/22/gallup-support-for-legalizing-marijuana-at-historic-high-2.

#7 Study: Marijuana Use Not Associated With Changes In Brain Morphology
Marijuana use is not associated with structural changes in the brain, according to imaging data published in January in The Journal of Neuroscience. Investigators assessed brain morphology in both daily adult and adolescent cannabis users compared to non-users. They found "no statistically significant differences … between daily users and nonusers on volume or shape in the regions of interest" after researchers controlled for participants’ use of alcohol. "[T]he results indicate that, when carefully controlling for alcohol use, gender, age, and other variables, there is no association between marijuana use and standard volumetric or shape measurements of subcortical structures," researchers reported. Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/02/19/study-marijuana-use-not-associated-with-previously-reported-changes-in-brain-morphology.

#8 Marijuana Consumers Less Likely To Be Obese, Suffer Diabetes Risk
Those who consume cannabis are 50 percent less likely to suffer from metabolic syndrome as compared to those who do not, according to findings published in November in The American Journal of Medicine. Metabolic syndrome is a group of risk factors, including high blood pressure, high blood sugar, unhealthy cholesterol levels, and abdominal fat, which are linked to increased risk of heart disease and adult onset diabetes, among other serious health consequences. The findings are similar to those of previous studies reporting that those who use cannabis are less likely to be obese or suffer from diabetes. Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/11/19/study-marijuana-consumers-less-likely-to-suffer-from-metabolic-syndrome.

#9 NHTSA: THC-Positive Drivers Don’t Possesses Elevated Crash Risk
Drivers who test positive for the presence of THC in their blood are no more likely to be involved in motor vehicle crashes than are drug-free drivers, according to a case-control study released in February by the United States National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration. Authors reported that drivers who tested positive for the presence of THC possessed an unadjusted, elevated risk of accident of 25 percent (Odds Ratio=1.25) compared to controls (drivers who tested negative for any drug or alcohol). However, this elevated risk became insignificant (OR=1.05) after investigators adjusted for demographic variables, such as the drivers’ age and gender. The study is the largest of its kind ever conducted in the United States. Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/02/12/feds-thc-positive-drivers-no-more-likely-to-be-involved-in-motor-vehicle-crashes.

#10 Legal Marijuana States Collect Over $200 Million In New Tax Revenue
Taxes on the legal production and sale of cannabis in the states of Colorado and Washington have yielded over $200 million in new revenue since going into effect in 2014, according to calculations reported by The Huffington Post in September. Colorado collected more than $117 million dollars from marijuana sales while Washington collected over $83 million. Cannabis sales commenced in Oregon in on October 1, 2015 and have yet to begin in Alaska. Read the full story at: http://norml.org/news/2015/09/03/legal-marijuana-states-collect-over-200-million-in-new-tax-revenue.

CONTINUE READING…

If Kentucky wants to pass br 161 "the Cannabis Freedom Act", you must do this now…

TREELeft:  Link to USMjParty Kentucky

Above: Link to Facebook Page of the "Kentucky Cannabis Freedom Coalition"

Because of the "Origination Clause" in the U.S. Constitution there must be a Representative to submit a "Companion Bill" in order for it to move forward because this clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.

(From Wikipedia) The Origination Clause, also known as the Revenue Clause, is as follows:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

COMPANION BILL – A bill which is identical to a bill having been introduced in the opposite house.

THEREFORE,

What we need to do right now is to find a Representative who is willing to back up Sen. Perry B. Clark’s BR 161 with a "COMPANION BILL" in order to be in coordination with the "Constitution".

Please write your Representative an email or letter asking them to get behind Sen. Perry B. Clark’s BR 161 and provide a "Companion Bill" as soon as possible because the Legislative Session (calendar link here) starts on January 5th, 2016 and January 8th, is the deadline for prefiled House Bills.

The LINKS you will need are listed here (just click on picture):

LINK to KY BR 161

KyLRC 12.17.15 Ky Cannabis Freedom Act homepage

LINK to KY Legislator’s Email Addresses:  (Please note that some of the Representatives/Senators have direct email links, and some of them can be copied/pasted into your email program). 

KY Legislative Email Addresses

Also, of note, this is a little more time consuming, but worth it, I believe –  When I wrote my "Email" I sent it to my individual Representative, who is Johnny Bell – in Glasgow, KY, but I also copied the email to ALL of the Kentucky Senators as well as the Representatives, so that THEY ALL would be able to see the letter I had written.

Here is the LINK to the 2016 Legislative Calendar:

KY 2016 Regular Session Legislative Calendar

As well, anyone who may have a printer, and postage money available should ideally send individual letters through the U.S. Postal Service to the Representatives given addresses.  The more "paper" we can send them, the better they will hear us speaking!

PHONE CALL’s as well will be a great help!  Please back up your letter or email with a phone call to your Representative to reiterate the issue of BR 161 !!!

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS BILL DIE!   KEEP IT GOING WITH AN EMAIL AND A PHONE CALL TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY!

Red Vanwinkle explains why we must regulate cannabis like alcohol in kentucky

 

December 12, 2015

Good morning everybody!

Will you help me?

41128_424755311230_2510995_n

Above: Patient in Illinois tends to a plant in 2010.

Today I will be sharing a story that only a handful of people knows about. Some know just enough, that I have been asked many times over the years to share publicly. I haven’t done so, because it could be seen as a weakness. So here goes, and it’s 100% true. As some of my longtime friends know.

It all started with extreme bloating. Eventually my belly got so big, I was about a 40 waist, but was drastically loosing weight. I was getting weaker everyday.

After some time, I had a bunch of symptoms hitting me. Some scary stuff. Like pain all over in my joints. Eyes so dry in the mornings, I would open them real slow, as to not rip my eyes. I was getting weak as a kitten, and bed ridden some days.

Then I started to get mind fog. So bad so, I got lost driving in Monticello KY. Which I know the place very well, and has only about 3 stop lights. I then my eyes started to change colors. Then my skin started to change colors. I started turning yellow. I was not able to get out of bed much at this point. I knew this was something that might kill me. I seen my family cry, and very afraid of their future. Which was hard for a man to swallow.

During this time we lived off the grid. Not much money at all. I cut and sold firewood, some crops, and a little homemade drink. Certainly not enough money to have doctors and hospitals find out what was wrong. With me being too week to cut and split much wood. We had less wood to sell. So we had less money.

I had started trying to get my affairs in order. But I was not giving up. I went into town (Monticello) almost everyday. I went to the library to do research online. Which is how I was getting lost, being by myself. But it wasn’t a major problem, just drive around for a minute, and I would be back on my road heading home.

Spelling simple 3 and 4 letter words, was becoming a major issue in my research. But I swallowed my pride, and started asking people how to spell words, when I ran into the issue. I know this sounds simple enough. But it is a hard task to ask someone how to spell "was". People think you’re mentally handicapped, completely uneducated, or on dope. Which during this time, I was not doing anything. No drinking, no pot, no over the counter pain meds, or anything I thought could place strain on my liver.

I had actually stopped smoking pot before I got sick. I stopped smoking cigarettes during that time too. And I rarely ever drink. When I do drink, I don’t drink much. I did when I was really young. But as I got older, the after effects got worse (hangover). So I quit that business long ago lol.

The mind fog continued to get worse, as I became more yellow in color. I had gotten to the point I was having a hard time remembering how to say some words. Conversation was becoming a difficult task.
There was several more symptoms. Too many to go into detail here, and that some I would rather not share. I got to where almost everything I ate caused me some type of issue. Which drove the wife nuts trying to see I was able to eat.

It got so bad, that my wife came to me crying, saying she can’t watch me die. I told her I was getting better. That it was just going to take time to show on the outside. Yes, a little white lie at the time. But I figured well placed. I soon after started being a jerk, so she would leave me. I had come to the conclusion. That if this killed me. I was going to die on my terms, and alone. As I did not want this burden on anyone else. Yet she didn’t go anywhere.

Yet, I was still not just going to give up. In my research. I knew my liver was shutting down. So I started buying different liver supporting substances. Like a vitamin called liver aid, milk thistle. I bought B12 to help increase energy. I bought acidophilus to help incase I had cancer. Which many signs was pointing at that. And I had recently had a close relative die from liver cancer. There was other various health items too, but the listed ones was my go to meds.

All this stuff was not cheap in the stores. But I knew I had to have it. I needed it to keep me going, so I could find out what was wrong with me. Luckily there was a salvage store in Pine Knot. This store on one day a week had all kinds of vitamins for cheap. They had boxes, and boxes of different vitamins, and over the counter meds. The wife and I would search through all those boxes for a bottle here and there. Most of the time, we would find enough to get me through the week. Which they had new stuff every week. So this became a weekly thing, of a couple hours. There was times we found extras, so I would buy all I could. I would even count change just to get as many of the found extras as we could. Hated to leave any bottles, as I knew I would sometime or another need them, and not have them. There was some weeks we didn’t find what I needed. So I would bum some from friends that had alcohol related liver issues. Just to make it to the next week. Good friends are worth more than gold to me!!!
So back to figuring out what was wrong. I had symptoms that matched cancer, and about 100 different rare genetic disorders. Genetic disorders are not contagious, it’s something a person is either born with or not. But could be dormant for years before coming to cause issues.

So there I was. I had either a possibility of various cancers, or a genetic disorder. Which most of these things I found was calling for a prognosis of death, with varying expected times. But there was hope. I had started eating super healthy, and taking my vitamins/meds. I was seeing improvement with my liver situation. The situation went from all bad, to sometimes improvement. While other times not. Which was also kinda scary, as this type improvements with these things, is also likely with liver cancer. But basically a little time buying. Either way, I was taking what I could get, and happy to have it. As the steady decline was even more scary. As the scariest thing was leaving my family without. This I had to fix!

With the small improvements, and the energy increase from eating lots of sublingual B12 tablets a few times a day. I was able to do more. Sublingual tablets absorb inside your mouth. So almost instant energy.

I started looking at getting back closer to her family. We logged the property, and bought a foreclosure. We got the home at a amazing price. The asking price was so low, we knew others would also be putting in offers. So I offered them $1200 more than asking price, and we got it. We was flat broke no furniture. An extension cord running from our new neighbors lol. But we had the house, and food in our belles. Which was completion of phase one. Make sure the family had enough to be ok when I left.

This new home needed all kinds of work, and still needs some. But it has awesome bones. Multi colored brick, new metal roof, a two car garage, and fenced in yard on an acre. This new home was out in the country. Yet a 15 minute drive to Elizabethtown KY. Which is very close to Fort Know KY.

The jobs was available here. I had no problem in getting jobs. Matter of fact, I got 3 as soon as I went looking. I applied for jobs I thought I could handle. Which I decided I was going to take them all. I felt like superman changing cloths on the fly lol.

One of the jobs was an advertising associate. Which I did sales, and mostly at my convenience. Which was easy enough. Just had to get some fancy duds, and a hair cut. I didn’t make a killing, but did ok.
The next job was a pizza delivery driver a few hours a day. Which again was easy enough. I just needed a gps tell me where to go. So I got one, and the job was a piece of cake. I made a sorry paycheck, but made good in tips.

The 3rd job was kind of tougher. Yet I still felt it was doable. I applied at a factory delivering parts to the different lines. Which I had a cart that I drove around. This one proved to be a bit more difficult. I had no gps to tell me where to go, and I would get turned around from time to time. Which I just applied my previous way of dealing with such. I drove until I figured out where I was lol. Most thought I was just having fun, so I played along. I would Aihooooo, and toot the horn as I would fly by hahahaha. This job was also long hours, and 7 day a week most weeks. So I was having a hard time doing so much. Yet I was making the most of my money on this job. Most, but not all my money. So I just needed something to bring in a few more bucks.

I quit the factory job, and started my handyman service. I had to act as if the client needed something major. I was not the best qualified to do the task. As really I was not able to do a lot physically, even though I had all the knowledge to compete almost any home repair. I just didn’t want to let be known, I was not physically able to do some task. I remember in the beginning. I was doing a painting job, and started to give out on a ladder. I told the home owner, the heavy onion smell, from something they was cooking was causing me issue, and I needed a break for fresh air. Which was likely true, as onions was one of the things that started making me sick if I ate them. Which the homeowner quickly aired out the home, while I was getting some fresh air. I also ate several b12 tablets. Which I was able to continue on.

As business increased, I was able to add the family. Which they worked hard, and we was as efficient as any small construction crew. I have several awesome short cuts, that makes things faster, and easier, with the same quality results (Work smarter, not harder).

You know I am not in such a condition now. So how, and when did I change things around. I was spending every spare moment researching medical conditions. We had wifi at our new place. Which made research a lot more convenient. I was doing lots of research on auto immune disorders(genetic disorder). Because I had seen in my research. Autoimmune disorders can have greatly varying symptoms. Which makes it difficult for medical professionals to track down. This also causes wrong diagnoses many times.

As I researched Autoimmune disorders. I learned that they can stay dormant in a person for many years, or never come about even if the person has the genetics to develop a Autoimmune disorder. That this can be triggered by several things. One of those things is surgery. Which just before my issues started, I had all my teeth pulled. Because I had bad teeth, due to a genetic disorder. Where I had no natural enamel coating on my teeth. So bells was going off, for me to concentrate my research here. I tested gluten, and gluten was a factor in the bely bloating, and pain. So I stopped gluten. With some results but still some things got worse. Which caused me to realize I could be affected by multiple genetic disorders.

I had been researching everything I could. Other medical practices in other places, and there findings, and treatments. Then somehow in my search I was reading some comments to a blog. One that said the US health department held a patent on cannabinoids having positive effects on Autoimmune disorders. So I copied, and pasted a search. Because at that time I didn’t know what cannabinoids was. As many people still don’t know what it is.
Sure enough, the US health department has this documented, and patented. This along with having positive effects in treating cancer. At this point, I am in shock that this is not know by the public. There has to be a reason. Because when I do searches on autoimmune, and cancer. There was thousands of different kinds of claims to be of benefit. But during that time, there was nothing unless you did a direct search for cannabinoids and cancer, or Cannabinoids and Autoimmune. I found the reason this was not very well known.

You know where cannabinoids are found? CANNABIS!!! Both hemp, and Marijuana has them.

Now I was starting to see another link. About the same time I quit consuming Cannabis, was about the same time I started getting sick. Could it be Cannabis was helping prevent autoimmune from developing? As I did my research, I found this to be very possible.

Here I was, had not consumed Cannabis for years. Didn’t really want to spend the money to get it. Takes time to grow. So I had to think long and hard. First I talked with my wife and son. I told them, and showed them what I had found. I asked them what they thought about me trying this to get better. They both looked at me like I was stupid. Not because it would be shameful. Because they didn’t care if I had to eat horse poop to get better. So with them it was a definite wanting me to give it a try.

Next I went and talked with my inlaws. As they have always been against any drugs, drinking, and even smoking. I rarely ever even smoke around them still today. Father inlaw was acting like he was ok, but I really didn’t know. Mother inlaw was acting tolerant as she knew I was sick. But was skeptical about any possible improvements.
The next input I went to seek was my friends. Which I even actually made a post. Back then, about 30 friends was all I had on my friends list lol. If the person was not an actual friend, they was not on my list in those days. Those post has since been deleted. As I deleted all post when I did my first TV show. All my friends that knew I was sick, and the ones just finding out I was sick, everyone said go for it.

Once I decided to go for it. Then I needed to figure out where to get it at a price I could afford. Lets just say I have many friends. Which has helped me. Even if I don’t have any money. If I am having issues. They take care of me best they can.

But even with knowing the right people, it was a gamble. As jail was no place for a person as sick as I was. Even now, a long sit in jail, could possibly cause a relapse. So another issue that needs to be fixed. Hence I started publicly supporting Cannabis reform in KY. Because I really don’t want to have to leave my home for safe access to what I need.

I started out as a hemp, and medical marijuana advocate. But once I started gaining notoriety, I started to learn Medical only in KY, would only be a money making sham. One the common person could not afford. I know this, as I was offered an in on this money making plan. I then seen this would be for the wealthy only. I seen this would create a group to fight further Cannabis reform. Such as a group of people whom would not be making as much, if full regulated came about. I was not selling out, while the common people suffer. Even if this would fix my situation. So now I advocate for Cannabis to be regulated like alcohol.

But before I did. I looked at all angles. When you look at Cannabis verses alcohol. It is clear that Cannabis is safer, less addictive, and pose fewer issues for a community than alcohol. I seen the fact alcohol is harder for teens to get than Marijuana. This is because street dealers don’t ask for ID. So with regulations like alcohol has. Cannabis would be harder for teens to obtain. So I seen no adverse reason that out weighed the good of regulating Cannabis like alcohol.
I seen the economic boost. I seen the decrease in consumption of heroin, and prescription pain pills.

I saw KY being a leading economy in the US. As KY grew 98% of the hemp for WWII. This is because KY has the best overall U.S. environment to grow Cannabis.

To bring this full circle. My mother inlaw would fire into anyone that says I shouldn’t consume Cannabis. She has went to Cannabis reform meetings. She has prepared food for Cannabis reform events. She has attended Cannastock. She has had discussions with her friends. She has helped me anyway she can. To help me help KY bring Cannabis reform to KY.  I have autoimmune disorder. It’s genetic, and Cannabis turns off the illness for me, and many other people.

Even though I didn’t really want to share. I did so in hopes of gaining as much help as possible.

Will you help me bring Cannabis reform to KY?

Would you want to face jail every time you need a prescription filled?

That is my world. Even though I don’t act like it bothers me, it DOES!
It’s not fair. It’s not fair people get pain meds they don’t really need, while I can’t get safe access to what I need. It’s not fair Sudafed is legal, and is what meth is made from. Because people how have a runny nose needs it. So they say the risk is worth it. Meanwhile heck no for Marijuana. Reason, someone will get high. Even though the high from marijuana has NEVER killed 1 person with overdose.

Here are some things you can do, if you you would like to help me.
You can call your KY legislators and ask them to support the new measure to regulate Cannabis in KY like alcohol. The number is (800) 372-7181.

You can tell pass this information on to any Kentuckian you know. And encourage them to make the call as well.

You can email your legislators asking them to support the new measure to regulate cannabis like alcohol.

There will be more you can get involved with. Just be watching as I will be posting various things to help bring this reform to KY.

You are welcome to share this post.

As always, thank you for your continued Cannabis support ,’-) Aihooooo

Written by:  Red Vanwinkle, Kentucky.

SOURCE LINK

Join him on Facebook HERE.

Kevin Sabet Is The Marijuana Movement’s Biggest Threat, But Can He Really Stop ‘Big Pot’?

By Joel Warner @joelmwarner [email protected] on December 09 2015 8:02 AM EST

Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing, Drew Angerer, Getty

BETHESDA, Maryland — Kevin Sabet, the man Salon called the quarterback of the new anti-drug movement, the guy Rolling Stone labeled the No. 1 enemy of marijuana legalization, the 36-year-old political wunderkind whom High Times has declared the devil himself, takes the stage in a sprawling conference hall at the annual conference of the Association for Addiction Professionals (NAADAC) and gazes with confidence over his audience. But what comes out of the mouth of the founder of the three-year-old nonprofit, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, or Project SAM, isn’t typical anti-marijuana rhetoric.

“We cannot be Reefer Madness 2.0,” he tells his audience. “We went overboard.” Sabet doesn’t suggest marijuana is a gateway drug, doesn’t resort to scare tactics like the “This Is Your Brain on Drugs" public service announcement from the 1980s. In fact, Sabet agrees with his pro-marijuana opponents on many matters. He’s opposed to harsh drug laws that have long criminalized people – mostly minorities – for smoking or possessing small amounts of marijuana. He concedes that components of marijuana might hold medical promise and wants the federal government to make it easier to study the plant. And, most strikingly, he concedes the war on drugs was a failure.

But he’s not willing to give up the fight. He’s launched a new war against marijuana legalization, one focused on a new bogeyman. “These are the guys who keep me up at night,” he says with dramatic flair during his presentation, clicking to a slide depicting not ominous drug dealers or disheveled hippies, but three slick-looking guys in suits and ties. They’re the co-founders of Privateer Holdings, a powerful marijuana private equity firm. (With his boyish, clean-cut looks and thickset frame swaddled in a jacket and tie, Sabet would fit in among the trio.)

“In my mind, legalization equals commercialization,” says Sabet, explaining that legal cannabis will lead to the rise of corporations whose bottom lines will be tied to promoting the use of an inebriating and habit-forming substance. Like the alcohol industry, these marijuana businesses will target excessive users. “This is the addiction business,” he says. “The industry has an incentive to encourage heavy use.” And like the tobacco industry, marijuana businesses will try to hook potential customers when they’re young – hence the growing ubiquity of marijuana-infused gummy bears and other candies.

It’s a compelling argument: Our country has already allowed the mass commercialization of two intoxicating substances, alcohol and tobacco, which together cause more than 500,000 U.S. deaths and $500 billion in social costs each year. Do we want to follow the same path for marijuana?

Now, more than ever before, the country may be ready to embrace Sabet’s line of reasoning. A legalization initiative in Ohio that would have granted an oligopoly to its deep-pocketed funders failed at the polls in November, but not before shifting the national dialogue around cannabis. Media outlets are reporting on the rise of “Big Pot" and marijuana advocates are bemoaning the fact that the country is entering a new era of cannabis reform in which “industry is taking over the legalization movement.” Sabet says the Ohio initiative has energized him and led to several new Project SAM donors.

"There’s a real tipping point here,” says Sam Kamin, marijuana law professor at the University of Denver. “It’s whether the industry runs this going forward or the policy wonks do. There’s real room for Sabet and others to say, ‘Let’s keep this from being tobacco and alcohol.’”

All it might take for the marijuana movement to lose ground is someone like Sabet, who has launched Project SAM chapters in three dozen states, to capture the hearts and minds of the people he calls “the marijuana middle,” the vast majority of Americans who don’t smoke pot but also don’t want to put people in jail for it. This could be why cannabis advocates are so antagonized by Sabet; maybe, deep down, they know he has a shot at stopping them.

But can Sabet even capture the hearts and minds of addiction specialists? At the end of his NAADAC conference presentation, he draws a hearty round of applause – from the 60 or so people in attendance. It’s a small fraction of the crowd the conference hall can hold.

The moderate turnout hints at the challenges that lie ahead for Sabet. While his kinder, gentler opposition to cannabis could be just what the anti-marijuana movement needs, with more than half of Americans now supporting legalization, are such efforts too little, too late? And if Sabet really has a realistic plan for marijuana that avoids both of hysterical excesses of the war on drugs and the corporate hazards of all-out legalization that the majority of Americans could get behind, why so often does it feel like he’s fighting this war all alone?

Driven to Compete

“Marijuana is more potent, it’s being marketed to kids, heavy use is at record highs … ”

It’s several hours before Sabet’s NAADAC presentation, and he’s hunched over a laptop in the 14th floor executive lounge of JW Marriot in downtown Washington, D.C. Through the lounge’s sweeping windows, the Washington Monument pierces the early morning sky. He’s prepping for several packed days of meetings and presentations, going over key talking points he has to hit not just at the addiction professionals convention, but in sit-downs with staff at the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, a drug court judge and other power players.

This is what Sabet does: He roves all over the country and beyond on the dime of the various policy groups that have invited him, hammering home key facts and figures. But right now he’s being extra diligent with his preparations. He only has three days here in D.C., where the future of national drug policy will be decided, before he’s off to his next excursion, to Ireland. It’s imperative he’s at the top of his game.

Usually the Kevin Sabet show is a solo operation, but this morning he’s joined by two Project SAM staffers, both recently hired. One is Jeff Zinsmeister, a former State Department narcotics affairs officer in Mexico who left a consulting job at Bain & Company to work for Project SAM. The other is Will Jones, who at 24 launched “Two Is Enough,” an organization that tried – and failed – to stop D.C.’s marijuana legalization initiative in 2012.

Zinsmeister and Jones look tired as they help Sabet finalize a PowerPoint presentation. At one point Jones makes a run for coffee. Sabet passes on the caffeine. He’s wide awake and ready to go, even though he got in late last night after a flight from Melbourne.

Sabet has always been like this: driven to compete, driven to win. “ The guy is always on,” says Zinsmeister. Buoyant and approachable, albeit well-versed enough in politics to stick to the script, Sabet likes telling stories of how he actively chats up hardened opponents, dismantling their assumptions of “the devil Kevin Sabet.” His wife Shahrzad, a postdoctoral fellow in international affairs at Harvard University, says she fell for him when they were both studying at the University of Oxford in 2004 because of his sincerity – “He totally wears his heart on his sleeve,” she says – compared to the slick alpha males she was used to at the institution.

But Sabet also has an aggressive side, one that arises and flourishes on the debate stage. His mentors vividly recall the moment when, at an Orange County, California, event, 17-year-old Sabet faced off against local Superior Court Judge James Gray and wiped the floor with the libertarian drug war critic. And his supporters speak in reverential tones of his ability to verbally spar with the marijuana movement’s most eloquent advocates. “He is probably one of the best debaters I have ever seen,” says Christine Miller, director of Project SAM’s Maryland chapter.

Sabet’s competitive streak was honed on the tennis courts of the upper-middle class southern California suburb in which he grew up. He was known for besting more powerful players who underestimated him, for thriving when all hope seemed lost. He did it all as a singles player.

“I hated doubles,” he says. “I didn’t want to let my partner down, and I wanted to rely on myself. I was going to go down alone or triumph in victory.”

His interest eventually shifted to another competition: Fighting marijuana. His crusade was inspired by a tragedy in high school. “A friend of his in school was killed in a drug-related car accident,” says his older sister, Mina Sabet. “He felt very passionate about it and wanted to find out the reason for it.” It’s the sort of anecdote that Sabet could use for political leverage, but he won’t go into details. “I don’t want to talk about my friend out of respect to the family,” he says.

The son of Iranian immigrants, avoiding alcohol and drugs was part of Sabet’s Baha’i faith growing up. But the stories his parents told of social injustices in their home country made him reluctant to fully embrace the strict criminal penalties of the war on drugs. “Our own family experienced persecution in Iran,” says Homa Tavangar, his older sister. “We grew up with a very strong sense of social justice, and taking a very big stand around issues like human rights.”

Becoming an anti-pot advocate at a young age was at times a lonely endeavor for Sabet, but it also got him noticed. “He always stood out,” says Robert DuPont, first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and one-time drug czar, who was one of Sabet’s mentors. “He was never like other people. You meet him and he is so clear on the issues, so outspoken, so against the stereotype.”

Launching Citizens for a Drug-Free Berkeley while an undergrad at the famed freewheeling school helped land Sabet a research job with President Bill Clinton’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, then another drug policy position under President George W. Bush. Finally he became a senior adviser to President Barak Obama’s first drug czar. He had high expectations for Obama’s marijuana policies. “I saw legalization coming down the pike, and I hoped this president didn’t get distracted by these really seductive arguments,” he says.

But instead there were setbacks, including the 2009 “Ogden Memo,” the Department of Justice notice that U.S. attorneys shouldn’t prosecute those in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, a memorandum that fueled dispensary industries around the country. According to Sabet, the memo blindsided the Office of National Drug Control Policy, triggering what he remembers as “pit in my stomach.”

The Ogden Memo was the turning point for Sabet. Marijuana advocates suddenly seemed more politically savvy, replacing buzzwords like “legalization” with more palatable options like “taxation and regulation.” In the fall of 2011, he left his job with the Obama administration to adopt his own approach to anti-marijuana advocacy. He recruited two contrasting heavyweights to his cause: Patrick J. Kennedy, the former Democratic U.S. representative from Rhode Island whose struggles with drugs and alcohol inspired him to become a steadfast anti-legalization proponent, and David Frum, a neoconservative speechwriter for George W. Bush. With their help, he launched what he titled “the third way” on marijuana policy, instead of outright criminalization or legalization.

“We had lost the middle,’” he says. “We had to rebrand.”

The Third Way

In January 2013, two months after Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, Sabet and Kennedy launched Project SAM in Denver. “We’re opening the doors to allowing a new, powerful industry to downplay the effects of a substance they will be profiting off of and to downplay the effects of addiction,” Sabet told the media at the time.

While the United States generally accepts big companies running major industries, Sabet argues a line should be drawn for potentially addictive products like marijuana. “Big Tobacco was a disaster for our country in terms of the marketing machine that was activated, while the government looked the other way for a century,” he says. “Do we want to repeat that with yet another substance? And one that in fact, unlike tobacco, produces intoxication and therefore leads to car crashes, workplace accidents, school dropouts and mental illness?”

Project SAM launch, REUTERS, Rick Wilking Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., (left) and Kevin Sabet at the 2013 launch of Project SAM.  Rick Wilking/Reuters

It’s why Project SAM opposes any form of legalization. But then what does the organization want in its place? Sabet has repeatedly promised to develop model laws, but so far, policy proposals encapsulating Project SAM’s preferred legal reforms, such as reduced marijuana arrests and increased public health campaigns and treatment options, haven’t materialized.

“What do they want as a policy?” says Tom Angell, chairman of the pro-legalization group Marijuana Majority. “They make these assertions, how it’s something in the middle, but it’s very vague.”

Sabet says his organization has been working with drug-law experts and political consultants on the matter, and Project SAM-backed policy initiatives are coming soon. “We have to go on the offense,” he says. “I am sick of saying, ‘Vote no, vote no.’ We want to be ‘yes.’”

Sabet insists these proposals will be a major shift from the punitive “War on Drugs” approaches of old, including policies he worked on as a White House adviser. But some of his opponents wonder if his evolution is simply political expediency. “For many, many years he was a major driving force behind jailing and demonizing marijuana users,” says Brian Vicente , a Denver marijuana attorney who co-authored Colorado’s 2012 legalization initiative. “Now that public opinion has shifted away from the drug war, he has attempted to rebrand himself as the ‘Smart,’ middle approach, without acknowledging his past.”

Then there’s the fallout Sabet predicted from the country’s first experiments with legalized marijuana, how he promised in 2014 that in Colorado, people should expect “criminal organizations to adapt to legal prices,” “our teens to be bombarded with promotional messages from a new marijuana industry seeking lifelong customers” and “the social costs ensuing from increased marijuana use to greatly outweigh any tax revenue.” Two years in, has the doom and gloom he foretold come to pass?

Marijuana Support Over Time | InsideGov

Sabet and others point to reports concluding that problems such as marijuana use among youth, cannabis-related hospitalizations and marijuana traffic deaths have all increased since Colorado legalized marijuana. But others argue these reports feature selectively parsed data to suit the authors’ purposes, and note that other studies indicate marijuana might lead to reduced driving fatalities and underage use.

The sky hasn’t fallen in Colorado or Washington State since marijuana became legal, concludes Jonathan Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon University professor who studies marijuana policy. But that’s because, he says, it’s too soon to determine the social impacts of the policy change. He thinks that anyone who tries to spin the short-term data to either promote or condemn legalization is missing the bigger question: What happens years from now to the first generation to grow up not just with legalized but potentially mass-marketed cannabis?

“Only an idiot would predict that the problems would come in two years,” says Caulkins. “I think we are going to legalize this nationally, we are going to let Big Tobacco play, and 25 years from now we will say, ‘What were we thinking?’”

A Thousand Kevins

As his three-day Washington, D.C., junket progresses, Sabet and his two-person Project SAM entourage ping-pong from one appointment to the next. As an Uber driver transports the trio to the NAADAC conference, Sabet conducts a news interview with a British journalist over his cell phone while Zinsmeister and Jones tweak their boss’ conference slideshow. At the convention center in Bethesda, Maryland, the three grab granola bars and potato chips from a Starbucks to make do for lunch, then power-walk through the facility, looking for the right conference hall.

Throughout their exploits, there’s talk of money. Before the insurance association meeting, the three brainstorm as to how best ask for financial support. After Sabet’s NAADAC talk, Jones suggests they acquire a smartphone credit-card reader, so they can take donations from inspired audience members after future speeches. As they are driven through posh D.C. suburbs, they admire the sprawling residences, making cracks that “multimillion-dollar drug warriors” like themselves should get mansions like these.

Project SAM’s opponents have long wondered who is paying the nonprofit’s bills. Critics have scrutinized the fact that when Project SAM first launched, it received support from Community Alliances for Drug Free Youth, a California nonprofit that’s received funding from the Federal Drug-Free Communities Act, which means the organization could have a financial interest in preserving the country’s current drug policies and related grants. And they’ve pointed out that Project SAM appears to enjoy a cozy relationship with several local DEA task forces, which have long operated as an advance guard in the country’s war on drugs.

Sabet’s detractors also make note of the fact that Stuart Gitlow, an outspoken member of Project SAM’s board of directors, is the medical director for a pharmaceutical company marketing Zubsolv, a drug designed to treat opioid addiction, and that Robert DuPont, Sabet’s mentor, helps run a consulting firm specializing in drug testing management. Sabet himself was an advisory board member of the Drug Free America Foundation, an organization founded by Mel and Betty Sembler after they shut down STRAIGHT, Inc., a highly controversial drug treatment company. Drug manufacturers and drug testing companies are also major sponsors of anti-marijuana organizations like NAADAC. Could they be bankrolling Project SAM, too?

Sabet insists that his organization receives zero funding from pharmaceutical companies, drug-testing interests or the government, although some of his trips and talks have been financed by organizations that do. And while Project SAM hasn’t yet filed taxes for 2014 – the first year the 501c3 nonprofit was in operation – Sabet says that when it does, the records will show an annual operating budget of around $100,000, funded entirely by small donations and a few larger contributions from organizations like the Bodman Foundation and Patrick Kennedy’s Kennedy Forum. While recently new funding sources have allowed Project SAM to make two additional hires in Washington, D.C., the organization is still far from flush with cash. “On one hand, it’s a badge of honor how much we have done with so little,” says Sabet. “On the other, it’s kind of embarrassing.”

Project SAM’s financial situation isn’t just embarrassing; it also highlights just how much has changed since the days of bush-league cannabis activists going up against the war on drugs machine. In 2013, the Marijuana Policy Project posted $1.6 million in revenue, while the Drug Policy Alliance boasted over $9 million, and these organizations have used their coffers to outspend their opponents on major legalization initiatives by a factor of 10 or more. And while reporters now have a plethora of pro-marijuana spokespeople they can mine for comments on the importance of legalization, on the anti-legalization side, they mostly just have Sabet. While the head of Project SAM may be a capable spokesman, is his voice powerful enough?

“When we had the ‘Just Say No’’ press on drugs, we had the first lady leading the charge, and that’s powerful,” says Tom Gorman, director of the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and longtime drug-war soldier. “The anti-legalization side doesn’t have that crusader that people are going to look to follow right now, and that’s a real deficit. Kevin’s not a radical; he is very reasonable; he is looking at the science, but he’s just Kevin Sabet trying to do the right thing.”

Late on his first day in Washington, D.C., Sabet returns to the JW Marriot’s executive lounge to unwind over a club soda. He doesn’t drink, but it’s clear the long day is getting to him. His polished talking points slip away, and anger seeps into his voice. But he’s not mad at pro-marijuana advocates, the ones he’s endlessly battling. He’s mad at anti-marijuana activists, or rather the lack thereof.

“I want there to be a thousand Kevins,” he exclaims. “There can’t be just one Kevin. Kevin is not going to be able to do this alone. Kevin can’t just do this year after year, he is going to have a heart attack.”

Running Out Of Time

After his D.C. lobbying trip, Sabet flies to Dublin followed by London for meetings and presentations, then he’s off to upstate New York for a fundraising event. After that, there are strategy meetings in San Diego, followed by a trip south to speak at a conference in Mexico before returning to New York City, where he lives with his wife Shahrzad. Sabet says his international work is partially about correcting misconceptions about U.S. policy, but also “advocates abroad [who] ask me to come to give a shot in the arm to their efforts.”

Through it all he’s prepping for 2016. At last count, there are more than a dozen legalization and medical marijuana initiatives being readied for state ballots next year. “Obviously, I think 2016 is important,” says Sabet. “If we can figure out the angles that are important and be smart about it and not shoot ourselves in the foot, as we often do, we have a shot.”

But even some of Project SAM’s staunchest supporters are starting to sound like they’re losing hope. “We are not as far as I would have expected us to be,” says Patrick Kennedy, the organization’s co-founder. “I am proud to be affiliated with Project SAM and doing what I can to help, but I am facing the same ambivalence and intransigence he is facing. It’s very disheartening.”

But Sabet, for one, won’t be giving up the fight. He’s a “happy warrior,” says Kennedy.

It’s like he’s back on the tennis court, begging his opponents to underestimate him, hoping to thrive when all hope seems lost. He’ll keep fighting to the end – even if he’s all alone. “This is deep in my veins,” says Sabet. “I feel like it is my calling.”

At one during Sabet’s D.C. junket, his packed schedule risks getting the best of him. He’s slated to appear on what he believes is a taped BBC News segment, but the car service that’s taking him, Zinsmeister and Jones to the television studio gets snarled in beltway gridlock. While they’re still several blocks away, Sabet gets a call from the studio: The segment is live, not taped, and cameras are rolling in just a few minutes.

The three scramble out of the car and take off. Zinsmeister and Jones look stressed, but not Sabet. Running down the sidewalk, he’s grinning, like he’s having the time of his life.

“We’re running out of time,” he says. “It’s a good analogy.”

CONTINUE READING…

After federal raids, U.S. tribes cautioned about marijuana

SANTA FE, N.M. — Tribes across the U.S. are finding marijuana is risky business nearly a year after a Justice Department policy indicated they could grow and sell pot under the same guidelines as states.

Play Video

Justice Department clears the air on states’ marijuana laws

Federal raids on tribal cannabis operations in California followed by a South Dakota tribe’s move this month to burn its crop amid fears it could be next have raised questions over whether there’s more to complying with DOJ standards than a department memo suggested last December.

The uncertainty — blamed partly on thin DOJ guidelines, the fact that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal laws, and a complex tangle of state, federal and tribal law enforcement oversight on reservations — has led attorneys to urge tribal leaders to weigh the risks involved before moving forward with legalizing and growing pot.

"Everybody who is smart is pausing to look at the feasibility and risks of growing hemp and marijuana," said Lance Gumbs, a former chairman of the Shinnecock Tribe in New York and regional vice president of the National Congress of American Indians. "But are we giving up on it? Absolutely not."

At a conference on tribal economic development held in Santa Fe, tribal leaders and attorneys said Wednesday that the raids have shown there may be more red tape for tribes to negotiate when it comes to legalizing cannabis than states have faced.

That’s especially the case for tribes that are within states where marijuana is not legal. In those cases, tribes may face the challenge of figuring out how to bring cannabis seeds onto reservations without crossing a state jurisdiction, and sheriffs and state officials are bound to be less approving of marijuana, said Blake Trueblood, director of business development for the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, host of the conference.

The DOJ memo sent to U.S. attorneys last December directed them not to prioritize prosecuting federal marijuana laws in most cases where tribes legalized the drug for medical or recreational use. The memo calls for tribes to follow an eight-point policy standard that includes taking measures to keep pot out of the hands of children and criminal networks, and not transport it across federal or state jurisdictions where it remains illegal.

"Industrial hemp, medical marijuana and maybe recreational marijuana present a lot of opportunity. But for now, the best advice is to proceed with caution," said Michael Reif, an attorney for the Menominee tribe in Wisconsin, where tribal leaders filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday after federal agents recently seized thousands of hemp plants grown for research. "We’re seeing the ramifications of things being unclear in a way states didn’t."

The Flandreau Santee Sioux in South Dakota – a state where marijuana isn’t legal – was the first to approve recreational pot under tribal law with a vote in June, and was one of the most aggressive about entering the industry, with plans to open the nation’s first marijuana resort on its reservation north of Sioux Falls.

But after weeks of discussions with authorities who signaled a raid was possible, the tribe announced last week it had burned all of its marijuana plants. Anthony Reider, the tribe’s president, told The Associated Press the main holdup centered on whether the tribe could sell marijuana to non-Indians, along with issues over where the seed used for planting originated.

He suggested that by burning the crops, the tribe could have a clean slate to relaunch a grow operation in consultation with authorities.

In California, the Alturas and Pit River Indian rancherias launched tribally run marijuana operations that were raided by federal authorities, with agents seizing 12,000 marijuana plants in July. The regional U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement that the two neighboring tribes planned to distribute the pot off tribal lands and the large-scale operations may have been financed by a foreign third-party foreign.

It’s not clear if the two tribes have plans for a new marijuana venture, and calls from the AP were not immediately returned.

The California and South Dakota tribes are three of just six so far this year that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana on their reservations.

The Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington state is another, and just opened a store last week for retail sales of the drug. But most expect the tribe to face fewer legal challenges because Washington allows for recreational marijuana use and the tribe entered into a compact with the state that sets guidelines for taxing pot sales.

"The tribes are not going to be immune to what the local attitudes toward marijuana are going to be," Trueblood said. "If there’s one 30,000-feet takeaway from this year, it’s that you’re not going to be successful if you don’t work with you local governments or U.S. attorneys.

CONTINUE READING…

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.” HOW THE UNITED NATIONS IS STEALING OUR “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” TO GROW FOOD AND MEDICINE THROUGH THE U.N. CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS AND AGENDA 21.

clip_image002

10/25/2015

Sheree Krider

Because of the nature of the Beasts which we are dealing with in regards to the “War on Drugs” in general, but additionally because the Beasts are taking control of plants, food, medications and plant medicines worldwide at will, I feel it is imperative that we confront this issue now.

WHILE READING THIS KEEP IN MIND THAT THE U.S. HAS HAD A PATENT ON MARIJUANA SINCE 2003: #6,630,507 October 7, 2003 Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.

This control is being achieved thru the United Nations which officially began on October 24, 1945, with the victors of World War II — China, the U.S.S.R., France, United Kingdom, and the United States — ratified the U.N. charter, creating the U.N. Security Council and establishing themselves as its five permanent members with the unique ability to veto resolutions. This ability keeps them in control of the U.N.

To date More than six in ten Americans have a favorable opinion of the U.N. as reported on the “Better World Campaign” website which is the funding source for the U.N.

The U.N. 1961 convention on narcotic drugs essentially set into motion the drug war as we know it today.

The United Nations Conference to consider amendments to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, met at the United Nations Office at Geneva Switzerland from 6 to 24 March 1972. 97 States were represented.

On November 7, 1972 President Richard Nixon was re-elected to office. It was on his watch that the amendments to the U.N. were enacted with an establishment of a “United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control.”

They readily admit that many of the drugs included have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

The term ”addict” means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug. Who will determine when a narcotic has become habitual? The “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 .

The Parties, recognizing the competence of the United Nations with respect to the international control of drugs, agree to entrust to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Economic and Social Council, and to the International Narcotics Control Board, the functions respectively assigned to them under this Convention.”

The “Parties shall maintain a Special administration for the purpose of applying the Provisions of this Convention.” in the U.S. this was the Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA.

Article 28 control of cannabis states that if a party permits cultivation that the system of control is the same as for opium poppy in article 23 which requires licensing by the “agency” which in the case of the U.S. would be the DEA. The number of acres planted and harvested must be recorded and “the agency must purchase and take physical possession of” it. The agency has exclusive rights to importing, exporting, and wholesale trading. It is also subject to limitations on production.

This is total control of the plant by the U.N. and effectively eliminates any chance of personal growing.

Natural growing plants which are included in Schedule 1 are marijuana, mescaline (peyote), psilocybin, and Khat. Other drugs are also included in this list.

More common opiates such as hydrocodone are included in Schedule II. These are regulated and handed out at the will of the government thru the medical industrial complex. How many people have been refused a prescription for Valium or Xanax in the past year because of a positive drug screening for Marijuana? How many people who do not consume Marijuana have been cut off as well because the DEA has, for all practical purposes, threatened the physician’s livelihood thru Statutes and “Bills” which have cut people off from their medications with no warning in the past year or two?

Title 21 states that the rules shall not apply to the cultivation of cannabis/hemp plant for industrial purposes only – however, it also does not say that hemp may be used for medicine without restriction.

Article 33 states that the parties shall not permit the possession of drugs without legal authority.

In the 1972 Protocol Amending The Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs 1961 Article 49 states that:

f) The use of Cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-five years from the coming into force of this Convention as provided in paragraph 1 of article 41.

1972 + 25 = 1997

Ironically enough the first medical cannabis law was enacted by California in 1996 – just in time to meet the 25 year deadline for ending all use of cannabis except for medical and scientific purposes…

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law allowing the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana’s lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

As I stated previously, in the U.S. the governing agency would be the DEA and on July 1, 1973 this agency officially came into existence in accordance with the U.N. Treaties which the U.S. government created and implemented. THE DEA HAS AN Annual Budget of $2.4 billion.

THE DEA Controlled Substances Act, TITLE 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS, CHAPTER 13 – DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL EFFECTIVE Oct. 27, 1970, SUBCHAPTER I – CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT,

States that:

“(1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.”

Meaning, it does not matter what the U.S. Citizens (or any other country for that matter) has to say about Cannabis or any other drug or plant on the list of U.N. control we are bound by the U.N. Treaty first and foremost, which was set into place by our own government.

“In 1986, the Reagan Administration began recommending a drug testing program for employers as part of the War on Drugs program. In 1988, Drug Free Workplace regulations required that any company with a contract over $25,000 with the Federal government provide a Drug-Free Workplace. This program must include drug testing.”

Manfred Donike, in 1966, the German biochemist demonstrated that an Agilent (then Hewlett-Packard) gas chromatograph could be used to detect anabolic steroids and other prohibited substances in athletes’ urine samples. Donike began the first full-scale testing of athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, using eight HP gas chromatographs linked to an HP computer.

YEP, HP IS HEWLETT PACKARD…His method reduced the screening process from 15 steps to three, and was considered so scientifically accurate that no outside challenges to his findings were allowed.

HP has laboratories around the globe in three major locations, one of which happens to be in Israel. Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel “America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East”, when explaining why the United States viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the United States grants Israel every year.

Most everybody thinks that the Cannabis issue is a U.S. issue and an issue unto itself, not encompassed within the issue of control of the masses, and at least as far as our own laws/statutes are concerned. “ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET OUR STATE TO LEGALIZE IT”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

We are all rolled up into the UN by virtue of our own Country which used this as a means to control worldwide, the people, without ever having to answer for or take responsibility for it again. Why? Because it is now a UN issue. And WE ARE BOUND by the UN treaties, as one of 5 founding members, who now rule the world.

Welcome to “THE NEW WORLD ORDER”. Yep, it’s been around a long time, we just didn’t notice it in time. Our men had just gone through a horrific war (WWII) and were too beat down and TOO sick to fight again and most likely didn’t even notice or worse yet thought the U.N. was a good thing that would prevent another WWII….. WELL, WELCOME TO WWIII AKA THE “DRUG WAR”.

I don’t care which State you reside in it is NOT legal to possess or use Marijuana in any form or fashion. You are living in an “Illusion.

As long as the U.N. has control over all narcotics in any form, we as a people will not legally be able to grow cannabis or any other plant that they categorize as narcotic.

What they will do for us is to use us like Guinea pigs in a testing environment to accumulate enough information whereby cannabis can be deemed a potentially useful drug from a pharmacological standpoint and then they can turn it over to the pharmaceutical companies to sell to us through commerce as a prescription. This is happening as we speak.

The drug war was created for us, and the prison industrial complex which they set up for control of us is the holding center for the Guinea pigs which are “us”.

They make sure enough of it gets out there that we can continue to use it illegally and they can study it at the same time they are locking us up for doing just that — using and studying marijuana. This in effect creates a double paycheck for them as they are keeping the prisons full and instituting private prisons for commerce and at the same time they are collecting information about the beneficial uses of cannabis thru drug testing patients. As well, those who seek employment or who are already employed with are targeted by random testing, and they collect our medical records for research at the same time the physicians are tagging us as cannabis abusers for reference via the ICD-10 codes used on medical claim forms submitted to the Insurance companies by our doctors’ offices. Essentially anyone who is a marijuana user is rounded up by the legal and medical system. If you use marijuana you cannot hide the fact unless you are part of the drug cartel itself and do not seek employment or medical care anywhere in the U.S. The marijuana cartel remains intact because they are “self-employed”.

Additionally, HIPPA states that In the course of conducting research, researchers may obtain, create, use, and/or disclose individually identifiable health information. Under the (HIPPA) Privacy Rule, covered entities are permitted to use and disclose protected health information for research with individual authorization, or without individual authorization under limited circumstances set forth in the Privacy Rule.

As far as Pharma Drugs are concerned, I must quote from Ms. Cris Ericson of the Vermont Marijuana Party, who stated, “People can no longer afford the pharmaceutical industry. The U.S. Congress votes to give research money to the pharmaceutical companies who invent new prescription drugs by synthesizing natural herbs, and then the pharmaceutical companies claim ownership of the new Rx patent, but it was the taxpayers who paid for the research. The taxpayers, under the patent law which states that “work made for hire, should own 50% of the patent” should rightfully be paid. The pharmaceutical companies not only profit wrongfully, by taking ownership of the patent that the taxpayers paid the research for, but then they take their huge profits and donate millions of dollars to PAC’s political action committees and Super PAC’s and then the PAC’s donate money to the U.S. Congress, so your taxpayer dollars have come full circle, and that looks just like money laundering, because millions of your taxpayer dollars end up in the campaign war chests of the elected officials.”

To that I must add that even if you obtain your medications for a $0 copay, you have paid for them already via taxation of the general public. Even those persons on disability or other government subsidy pay tax every time they make a purchase.

The U.N. Convention and the CSA both state that, “No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and they are not readily available for clinical use. NOTE: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, marijuana) is still considered a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, even though some U.S. states have legalized marijuana for personal, recreational use or for medical use. May 4, 2014”

This issue gains even more momentum when you understand that it is not just about cannabis/hemp/marijuana. It also involves all food and plants which are coming under their jurisdiction.

It is entirely possible that just as they can use drug testing to determine what drugs you put into your body they could develop testing to determine what foods you are eating. Imagine being “food tested” to see if you ingested beef or broccoli that was illegal to be in possession of! It seems an exaggeration but entirely within the realm of possibility.

HENCEFORTH, AGENDA 21…

The national focal point in the United States is the Division Chief for Sustainable Development and Multilateral Affairs, Office of Environmental Policy, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn’t have enough information to form an opinion.

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent and not a treaty, the United States Senate was not required to hold a formal debate or vote on it. It is therefore not considered to be law under Article Six of the United States Constitution. President George H. W. Bush was one of the 178 heads of government who signed the final text of the agreement at the Earth Summit in 1992, and in the same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of United States House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States. In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world.

During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels. The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.” Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21. Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21. Many other states, including Arizona, are drafting, and close to passing legislation to ban Agenda 21.

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) was established in 1974 as an intergovernmental body to serve as a forum in the United Nations System for review and follow-up of policies concerning world food security including production and physical and economic access to food. The CFS Bureau and Advisory Group-The Bureau is the executive arm of the CFS . It is made up of a Chairperson and twelve member countries. The Advisory group is made up of representatives from the 5 different categories of CFS Participants. These are: 1 UN agencies and other UN bodies; 2 Civil society and non-governmental organizations particularly organizations representing smallholder family farmers, fisherfolks, herders, landless, urban poor, agricultural and food workers, women, youth, consumers and indigenous people; 3 International agricultural research institutions; 4 International and regional financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, regional development banks and the World Trade Organization; 5 Private sector associations and philanthropic foundations.

FREEDOM ADVOCATES OPPOSITION TO AGENDA 21:

“Even the term “sustainable” must be defined, since on the surface it appears to be inherently positive. In reality, Sustainable Development has become a “buzz” term that refers to a political agenda, rather than an objectively sustainable form of development. Specifically, it refers to an initiative of the United Nations (U.N.) called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 is a comprehensive statement of a political ideology that is being progressively infused into every level of government in America.”

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as “not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights” and inalienable as “cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another.”

The Declaration of Independence reads:

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law. Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. In these situations no violation has occurred by way of the application of inalienable rights – a mere change in the law changes the nature of the right. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights the right to the use and enjoyment of private property cannot be abridged (other than under the doctrine of “nuisance” including pollution of the public water or air or property of another). The policies behind Sustainable Development work to obliterate the recognition of unalienable rights. For instance, Article 29 subsection 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights applies the “inalienable rights” concept of human rights:

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Read that phrase again, carefully! “Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

It suffices to say that the “war on drugs” is a war on us as a people. It is entwined with the United Nations and agenda 21. It is control of the masses through the illusion of a better world and offers peace and harmony to all people. It sounds really good on the surface until you start analyzing the issues at hand. The problem is that its intent is ultimately to control everything and everybody.

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the united nation”…there you have it in one sentence, straight out of the horse’s mouth. The new world order is now. If we continue down this path, sooner rather than later we will be told that we can no longer grow our own food, or meat, eggs, cheese, etc. It must be purchased through a reputable source – the grocery stores and the pharmacy so it can be “regulated”.

Our rights to the cannabis/marijuana plant has all but been lost at this point and if we do not do something immediately to regain it and continue passing illegal statutes (by virtue of the U.N.) state to state is not going to hold up in the long run because, first of all, federally it remains illegal and they can squash those legalization antics at any time, and most of all the U.N. owns it. And who owns the U.N.? The United States and five other countries which are china, Russia, France and the U.K.

It seems to me that the placing of these plants (including marijuana, and peyote) into a “U.N. Convention of Narcotic Drugs” was just the first step in their taking total control of all people throughout the world through their access to food and medication, and was and still is a test case to see if it would work in their favor. So far it seems it is working in their favor because we are losing the ability to fight back on a political basis and their guns are bigger than ours.

The fact that for years we have blamed the eradication of marijuana on Harry Anslinger even though the LaGuardia commission refuted his findings and Harry Anslinger himself later admitted his testimony wasn’t true and in fact marijuana was relatively harmless, only proves that the rhetoric remained in place for ulterior motives.

When the 1937 tax act was repealed in 1969 in Timothy Leary v. United States, the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 picked up and took over keeping the plant from us yet again. To this day it remains illegal although individual states within the U.S. are attempting to change that, the fact still remains that legally it is still a schedule 1 at the federal level and since federal law trumps state law we are getting next to nowhere.

The only thing that state legalization does do, is keep the state authorities from prosecuting except within the realm of the individual state statutes. At least we are fighting back and gaining momentum in that we are letting them know how we feel about it! Other than that at any time everything gained could be lost at the whim of the federal government.

If we do not focus on regaining the freedom of cannabis from the U.N. now, not only will it be forever lost to pharma, all of our food, medicines and plants are going right along with it and we will not ever be able to get them back. And if you think the prison industrial complex is a monstrosity now just wait till we are being locked up for growing a tomato or hiding a laying hen in our closet just to have access to an egg. Yes, I believe that it will get that bad in the not so far future.

So if you are not worried about it because you do not smoke marijuana, you might ought to worry about it because your grandkids will still need to eat whether or not they have cannabis as a medication through the pharmaceutical industrial complex. And to top it all off, what happens when you “break the law” by planting food and they find out and take away your right to obtain food much the same way they have taken away our rights to obtain scheduled medications because you tested positive for marijuana? (Don’t worry too much I am sure they will let you “something” to eat!)

We must have access to our own gardens and herbal plants because virtually every “drug” made comes from a plant and both prescription drugs and over the counter medications are at risk and could disappear rapidly. Remember over-the-counter pseudoephedrine? Every time they want to take something out of our hands they make it illegal and claim it is for the greater good. You may very well need to grow your own medicine too because if you do not meet their requirements they won’t let you have any of theirs.

It is a fact that cannabis/hemp is a food and a medicine. By withholding it from us they have effectively made many of us weaker through endocanabinoid deficiency and people are becoming sicker in general from the foods that we ingest as well as the ones that we do not have access to. Our ability to stand up to an enemy of any kind on a physical scale has been dramatically affected by both nutrition and the chemicals we are exposed to in our food and in our air and water as well as required inoculations against various diseases. Our children are having the worse reactions to all this which can be seen by the rise in not only autism but other birth defects as well.

The most important thing to note is that cannabis, food and medicine is something that everyone needs to have access to in various forms for various reasons. If it is only available thru a controlled environment then we will be subjected to probable malnutrition and genocide. Our health has become bad enough already due to corporate food and medicine. We certainly do not need it to get any worse. Is this going to be total population control via food and medicine? I am afraid so.

“People who don’t get enough food often experience and over the long term this can lead to malnutrition. But someone can become malnourished for reasons that have nothing to do with hunger. Even people who have plenty to eat may be malnourished if they don’t eat foods that provide the right nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.”

NOW THAT THE BEAST HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE?

Probably the best thing we can do right is to demand cannabis sativa and any naturally growing plant removed from United Nations control and the Controlled Substance Act in the U.S.

Additionally, Agenda 21 needs to be eliminated as it stands now. No entity should be allowed total control over plants and food, especially those grown in our own garden.

However, it is a fact that any type of food or medicine created and/or sold by a corporate entity has to be governed. Their entire purpose is to make money and they will do anything to accomplish that including selling us pink slime for meat. That is what should be governed.

It seems to me that the FDA is not doing its job correctly. Protect the people, not the corporations. The fact that a corporation has its own “personhood” is just totally ridiculous and must end.

The United Nations itself could be modified into an agency that protects the unalienable rights of the people throughout the world. It cannot police the world however. And it cannot rule the people as a government does. For this reason any policing agencies that are international such as Interpol must be eliminated. This would throw the policing back to the people’s own respective countries and the people of those countries will have to police their own governments to ensure that they keep the will of their people as top priority while governing.

Will this mean that war will continue to be a fixture in our world? Yes, of course it does. War always has been and always will be. It is the next closest thing to “God” that exists in that aspect. But if each country’s government has jurisdiction over its own people then the citizens can decide who will be ‘in charge’. If they need help during a crisis then other countries can step in to help where needed at the time and as they choose to do so. If the whole world comes under the rule of one governing body then we would have no control anymore at all. And this is what it seems to be leading up to – one governing body ruling virtually the entire planet with the ‘head’ of that governing body being the five original victors of WWII: the United States, Russia (U.S.S.R), France, China and the U.K.

World War II never really ended, it just changed it course. We have to put an end to this global war against all God’s people and the time is now! If you do not believe in god then you can say we have to put an end to the war against world humanity. It means basically the same thing – at least to me.

Just say no!

clip_image003

NOTES & REFERENCE LINKS:

Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary’s conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by repealing the Marihuana Tax Act and passing the Controlled Substances Act to continue the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.

“By 2020, 30 billion connected devices will generate unprecedented amounts of data. The infrastructure required to collect, process, store, and analyze this data requires transformational changes in the foundations of computing. Bottom line: current systems can’t handle where we are headed and we need a new solution. HP has that solution in The Machine. ”

Ban Ki-moon (Hangul: ???; hanja: ???; born 13 June 1944) is a South Korean statesman and politician who is the eighth and current Secretary-General of the United Nations. Before becoming Secretary-General, Ban was a career diplomat in South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the United Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime

http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/feeding/hunger.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/types.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/autism-rates-rise/6957815/

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/

http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/25_12/NEL251204R02_Russo_.pdf

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

http://hemp.org/news/book/export/html/626

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/understanding-unalienable-rights-2/

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_World_Food_Security

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

https://www.worldwewant2015.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations

http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/systems-research/themachine/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Labs#Labs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Donike

http://www.globalsources.com/manufacturers/Drug-Test-Kit.html?keywords=_inurl%3A%2Fmanufacturers%2F&matchtype=b&device=c&WT.mc_id=1001007&WT.srch=1&gclid=Cj0KEQjw2KyxBRCi2rK11NCDw6UBEiQAO-tljUJHHVLsYxnVYIjclmlCiwuLEH2akAa-iTolJ2zN6-8aAjtm8P8HAQ

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/2108cfrt.htm

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/chapter13&edition=prelim

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/chapter13&edition=prelim

http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm#cntlsbc

http://www.medicinehunter.com/plant-medicines

http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/united-nations/advocating-us-funding-un.html

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/index.html

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2767

Titles II and III Of The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act Of 1970 (Pub-Lic Law 91–513) https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/91-513.pdf

An Overview Of California’s New (And Improved) Medical Marijuana Laws

This past Friday I chaired a “Medical and Recreational Marijuana in Southern California” seminar in Santa Monica. During the seminar, Governor Brown signed into law the three bills that comprise the California Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA). Needless to say, this was big news for all of us at the seminar.

This is also, of course, big news for California and especially for its medical marijuana operators. These bills mean California will soon be moving away from an unregulated gray marijuana marketplace to a state-law-regulated medical marijuana regime. These bills mean that California will be getting the “robust regulations” the federal government requires from the states for the Department of Justice to be even minimally disengaged from what goes on with cannabis within the state. These bills also mean that California will be entering a new era where the Department of Justice (hopefully) finally cools its heels in the Golden State.

Throughout the seminar on Friday, attendees wanted to know how the MMRSA would operate, what local power would look like now, how licensing and any “priority” would work, and how some of the ambiguities in the bills would be sorted out moving forward. I was lucky enough as chair to have California Assembly Member Reginald Jones-Sawyer as a speaker, especially since he played a large part in crafting the language that now makes up a solid majority of the MMRSA. Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer gave attendees valuable insight into how this legislation came to be and what most concerned state lawmakers. It should be no surprise that the legislature’s biggest concerns were edibles, youth access to cannabis, and the impact marijuana businesses would have on their communities.

It’s important to recognize that the MMRSA is made up of three bills–Assembly Bill 266, Assembly Bill 243, and Senate Bill 643, with each bill having a different function, while at the same time containing overlapping, identical language regarding certain aspects of medical marijuana control. I examine each of these three bills below:

AB 266:

AB 266 focuses on MMRSA’s overall regulatory and licensing set up by specifically doing the following:

  • Legalizing all “commercial cannabis activity” undertaken pursuant to a state medical marijuana operational license (and pursuant to a local license or permit, if required by your city or county).
  • Where California’s medical marijuana economy is currently made up of non-profit mutual benefit corporations or non-profit cooperatives, AB 266 allows for-profit businesses to obtain operational medical marijuana licenses from the state.
  • Establishing the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (BMMR), which will be part of the Department of Consumer Affairs, under the supervision and control of the Director of Consumer Affairs. The BMMR is vested with the power and authority to develop and implement any and all rules necessary to enforce the MMRSA.
  • Giving The Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the State Department of Public Health the power to promulgate and pass any rules necessary to implement the MMRSA.
  • Setting up 17 different kinds of medical marijuana operational license types and prohibiting vertical integration (barring one exception below). A licensee may only hold a state license in up to two separate license categories out of the 17 and the state only permits certain combinations of licenses. Moreover, for growers, regardless of license combination, the state only allows up to 4 acres of total canopy to be cultivated while the license or license combination is valid.
  • Providing for one difficult to attain carve-out for vertical integration. If your city or county has an ordinance that requires or permits vertical integration and your business was vertically integrated before July 1, 2015, and you’ve been continuously operating and registered with the Board of Equalization, you get to stay vertically integrated in the new licensing system until January 1, 2026, when that privilege will be repealed.
  • Permitting cities and counties to regulate medical marijuana businesses beyond the requirements set forth under the MMRSA and the BMMR’s rules. The bill also allows cities and counties to ban medical marijuana businesses within their borders.
  • Mandating local approval of your marijuana business by providing that “[a] licensee shall not commence activity under the authority of a state license until the applicant has obtained, in addition to the state license, a license or permit from the local jurisdiction in which he or she proposes to operate, following the requirements of the applicable local ordinance.” Note that the revocation of your local permit or license means you cannot operate in that city or county even if you still have your state license.
  • Giving local jurisdictions the power to tax and assess fees against medical marijuana businesses.
  • Setting forth the requirements for marijuana deliveries in California. Delivery of marijuana by a dispensary to qualifying patients or designated primary care givers will be licensed by the state only if it is also allowed in the local jurisdiction in which the dispensary licensee operates.
  • Prioritizing licensing for certain medical marijuana businesses. In issuing licenses, the state must prioritize any facility or entity that can demonstrate to the state’s “satisfaction” that it was “in operation and in good standing with [its] local jurisdiction by January 1, 2016.” In addition, an MMJ business that is operating in compliance with local zoning ordinances and other state and local requirements on or before January 1, 2018, may continue its operations until its application for licensure is approved or denied. So in other words, if you can get your cannabis business up and running by the end of this year with local approval where required, you will likely have priority when it comes to licensing under the MMRSA. I and my firm’s other California-licensed cannabis lawyers are already getting calls and emails from existing and new clients seeking help on this.

Issuance of a state license or a determination of compliance with local law by the [state] shall in no way limit the ability of the City of Los Angeles to prosecute any person or entity for a violation of, or otherwise enforce, Proposition D, approved by the voters of the City of Los Angeles on the May 21, 2013, ballot for the city, or the city’s zoning laws. Nor may issuance of a license or determination of compliance with local law by the [state] be deemed to establish, or be relied upon, in determining satisfaction with the immunity requirements of Proposition D or local zoning law, in court or in any other context or forum.

AB 243:

AB 243 focuses on regulating marijuana cultivation for medical use and on California’s environmental concerns regarding marijuana cultivation. This bill:

  • Gives the California Department of Food and Agriculture the power to promulgate any and all rules necessary to accomplish the regulation of medical marijuana cultivators. The Department of Food and Agriculture will also be the one issuing and overseeing all cultivators licenses.
  • Tasks the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, with dealing with pesticide usage and safety as those relate to marijuana cultivation.
  • Calls for the California Department of Food and Agriculture to work with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that “individual and cumulative effects of water diversion and discharge associated with cultivation do not affect the instream flows needed for fish spawning, migration, and rearing, and the flows needed to maintain natural flow variability.”
  • Provides for the same standards set forth in AB 266 regarding local control and licensing and permitting to apply in AB 243. Nonetheless, “[i]f a city, county, or city and county does not have land use regulations or ordinances regulating or prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to administer a conditional permit program pursuant to this section, then commencing March 1, 2016, the [state] shall be the sole licensing authority for medical marijuana cultivation applicants in that city, county, or city and county.”
  • Does not apply to qualifying patients engaged in personal cultivation if the cultivation area does not exceed 100 square feet and if the qualifying patient does not sell, distribute, donate, or provide marijuana to any other person or entity. It also does not apply to designated primary care givers growing for qualifying patients if the cultivation area does not exceed 500 square feet, he or she cultivates marijuana exclusively for the personal medical use of no more than five specified qualified patients for whom he or she is the primary caregiver, and he or she does not receive remuneration for these activities, except for compensation provided in full compliance with Section 11362.765(c) of the Calls for the California Health and Safety Code. California State Department of Public Health to develop standards for producing and labeling all edible medical cannabis products. The Department of Public Health will also almost certainly be in charge of regulating the edible potencies as well.

SB 643:

Just like its companion bills, SB 643 contributes to the regulatory and oversight structure of the MMRSA. It also specifically sets forth standards for licensed medical physicians and doctors of osteopathy (“physicians”) who recommend marijuana for medical use and it delves into the criminal background standards for applicants. The main points of this bill are the following:

  • Tasks the California Medical Board with prioritizing investigations of physicians who excessively recommend cannabis for medical use, fail to have a bona-fide patient relationship with those persons for whom they recommend cannabis, or fail to adhere to sufficient record keeping regarding their cannabis recommendations.
  • Makes it a misdemeanor for a physician to recommend medical cannabis to a patient and then to accept, solicit, or offer any form of remuneration from or to a state-licensed medical marijuana business if the physician or his or her immediate family have a “financial interest” in that business.
  • Mandates that applicants for any medical marijuana license must submit fingerprints to the Department of Justice for a criminal background check.
  • The state can deny a license application if “[t]he applicant or licensee has been convicted of an offense that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the application is made. . .” In determining which offenses are “substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the application is made,” the state will take into account the following:
    • felony convictions for the illegal possession for sale, sale, manufacture, transportation, or cultivation of a controlled substance
    • violent felony convictions
    • serious felony convictions
    • felony convictions involving fraud, deceit, or embezzlement
  • Allows for the denial of a license application if the applicant has any history of local sanctions, fines, or penalties for violations of local ordinances, including those related to medical marijuana commercial activity, and for any revocation of a local license within the three years prior to the application for a state license.
  • Requires applicants to “[p]rovide evidence of the legal right to occupy and use the proposed location.” Applicants for a cultivator, distributor, manufacturing, or dispensary license must also provide the state with “a statement from the owner of real property or their agent where the cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, or dispensing commercial medical cannabis activities will occur, as proof to demonstrate the landowner has acknowledged and consented to permit cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, or dispensary activities to be conducted on the property by the tenant applicant.”
  • Compels applicants for a cultivator or a dispensary license to provide the state with “evidence” that their proposed location is at least 600 feet from a school. “School” has not yet been defined.
  • Mandates that applicants with twenty or more employees provide the state with a “statement” that the applicant will enter into, or demonstrate that it has already entered into, and abide by the terms of a labor peace agreement.
  • Requires that those seeking to cultivate, distribute, or manufacture medical cannabis must submit a detailed operational plan disclosing to the state their plans for cultivation, their extraction and infusion methods, their transportation processes, and their inventory and quality control procedures.
  • Tasks the state with developing an “organic certified” standard for medical marijuana in California by January 1, 2020, “if permitted [to do so] under federal law and the National Organic Program.”

All of the bills also mandate that various state agencies set up rules and systems for the following:

  • Tracing cannabis product
  • Record keeping
  • Anti-diversion systems for transporting cannabis product
  • Quality assurance testing standards
  • Robust labeling and packaging
  • Safe product handling
  • Security requirements

We will need to see how the various California state agencies use their rule making authority to fill in the blanks left by the three bills. For example, licensing and renewal fees have yet to be set, we don’t yet know exactly how edibles and infused products will be regulated under the bills, residency requirements (if any) and investment regulations need to be set, and none of the bills directly discuss how medical marijuana businesses will (or will not) be able to advertise their products and services. These issues, and more, will be addressed through state agency rule making that will take place until at least January 2018.

In our practice at Canna Law, we’ve handled licensing applications for all kinds of complicated and heavily regulated state licensing regimes with comprehensive and complicated barriers to entry, including in New York, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, Minnesota, Maryland, and Illinois. It is obvious to us that in crafting its own three medical cannabis bills, California borrowed language from already existing laws and regulations in many of these states. It is also clear to us that California is going to have one of the most comprehensive and complicated medical marijuana licensing regimes in the country. Consequently, California medical marijuana businesses should start preparing now for this future of extremely robust regulation. Though California probably will not issue licenses until well after January 1, 2018, it is never too early to prepare your business for the radical changes this new and massive regulatory system will bring.


Hilary Bricken is an attorney at Harris Moure, PLLC in Seattle and she chairs the firm’s Canna Law Group. Her practice consists of representing marijuana businesses of all sizes in multiple states on matters relating to licensing, corporate formation and contracts, commercial litigation, and intellectual property. Named one of the 100 most influential people in the cannabis industry in 2014, Hilary is also lead editor of the Canna Law Blog. You can reach her by email at [email protected].

Topics

Administrative Law, California, California Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), Canna Law Group, Conferences / Symposia, Drugs, Harris Moure, Hilary Bricken, Jerry Brown, Marijuana, Medical Marijuana, Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Regulation

CONTINUE READING…

Teen who committed suicide had just been told by school administrators that he had ‘ruined his life’ after marijuana bust at homecoming dance

 

https://i2.wp.com/i.imgur.com/yU6jAYU.jpg

  • Hayden Long, a 16-year-old sophomore and quarterback at Geneva High School, was found dead on Monday in his family’s Ohio home
  • He was one of six students questioned and disciplined at the school’s homecoming dance on October 3 for smelling like marijuana
  • Long’s friend, Hank Sigel, wrote an open letter describing the conditions in which they were questioned
  • He described himself and the five teens as honor students and athletes
  • Sigel said that Long was singled out by the three questioners, which included a principal, assistant principal and a police officer
  • Sigel said the students faced a two-week suspension, possible criminal charges, suspension from sports and a loss of drivers’ licenses
  • Long’s mother said she does not blame the school for her son’s death

By Kelly Mclaughlin For Dailymail.com

Published: 13:54 EST, 10 October 2015 | Updated: 16:28 EST, 10 October 2015

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267766/Ohio-teen-blames-Hayden-Long-s-suicide-school-administrators-students-told-ruined-life-marijuana-bust-homecoming-dance.html#ixzz3oLm3Y0FZ

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook