UPDATE on HB 2165: A Bill to Decriminalize Cannabis

See Finally, A Good Idea regarding the Decriminalization bill. 
As predicted, The Texas House of Representatives failed to pass the popular HB 2165, claimed to be the most comprehensive and full repeal of marijuana prohibition proposal in the country (June 6, 2015 NORML).

On we march.


The Green Association for Sustainability

CBD OIL: Placebo or Medicine?

I recently joined a lively thread on Facebook regarding the efficacy of CBD oil. CBD was approved in 2013 for medical use in a bill brought before the Texas Legislature by State Rep. John Zerwas, R-Richmond.  The House passed SB 339 on a 96-34 vote.  Still, the bill had many detractors.  And not just prohibitionists who feared this was the beginning to the end of prohibition, and the sale of non-psycho-active CBD in oral capsules would somehow cause more teenage cannabis use were against the bill (although I’m still a little fuzzy on the correlation between oral CBD and teenage pot smoking, let alone any causation).  Even pro-CBD and pro-medicalization groups feel that the bill is “too little, too late.”

READ MORE

/ag

The Green Association for Sustainability

SHOULD CANNABIS SEEDS BE ILLEGAL?

QUESTION:  Should Cannabis/Hemp Seeds be illegal/highly regulated/prohibited, regardless of the legal or medical status of cannabis?

Cannabis seeds contain zero levels of cannabinoids.  However, the bractlets which surround the seeds contain the plants' Highest concentration of cannabinoids (see picture). Even washing with an organic solvent can leave trace amounts of cannabinoids on the seeds. 
Interestingly, even after germination and the presence of the two "seed" leaves (cotyledons), the sprouting plant has no measurable cannabinoids. 
It is not until the first pair of true leaves appear that a measurable amount of cannabis can be determined.
SOURCE:   Starks, Michael (1990) Marijuana Chemistry. Ronin Pub: Oakland.
Archive photo from Bing Search.

How does a society agree that a law is unjust? Some thoughts and ideas…

In a civil society, we take rules and laws for granted; they must exist in order to prevent anarchy, conduct business, and progress the state of humankind with civility. We also associate “laws” with the “government”, and the enforcement of those laws rests in a power that resides above us.

But what happens when the laws no longer represent the consensus?

What of laws that do not reflect the current social mores and tolerances of the times?

What recourse is available to the proletariat when those in power enforce rules that disenfranchise one or more classes of society?

How does a civil society agree that a law is unjust?

 Sarah Iozzio writes:

For me, the definition of an unjust law is a law that perpetrates more harm than it prevents. Getting society to agree to this definition would take more people waking up an(d) becoming aware of that harm rather than believing the propaganda of what that law is supposedly accomplishing.

Sarah’s first step is to create a definition. I also agree, as it seems reasonable to me that reasonable people would then find a reasonable argument compelling.

While publicly elected legislatures create most laws, they are administered and enforced through Executive administrations, and upheld by the court systems at both Federal and State levels.  This three tiered system of checks and balances is designed to prevent abuses, yet it is also slow and cumbersome, fraught with politics and plunders.

So even if we can get people to agree, can we get change?

In order to get people to agree that a law is unjust and therefore should be changed, the mindset that created the law in the first place must be denounced:  People will have to admit that they were wrong. Changing minds can be a difficult row.

I hope this has sparked some ideas of your own on what it takes to change a law that is unjust. The “Law” could be a local ordinance that limits the parking on your street, a State regulation that prevents a fair hearing in child custody, or a Federal policy of criminalizing cannabis. It doesn’t matter if it is at the local level or if it is a Federal issue, if the law is contrary to the social beliefs of the voters, how do we convince those whom we’ve elected to change their minds and champion our causes?

I appreciate your comments and ideas.  You may post them here, or on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/mariesrun or https://www.facebook.com/Sustainablygreen

THANK YOU!

k rojas

Treatment of Disease with Cannabis and Restrictions to Research

DISORDERS TREATED WITH CANNABIS

Since the medicalization of cannabis in seventeen states, the number of disorders and diseases that have been legitimately found to respond to the use of medical marijuana has grown exponentially.  While the medical community originally assigned those with Cancer and AIDS as most benefited, and therefore the first to be prescribed medical marijuana, other diseases quickly followed, such as Hepatitis and Multiple Sclerosis.

Only because of social media has the anecdotal evidence of the many diseases helped by cannabis become so prolifically available.  In fact, many social phenomenons have been discovered through the study of social media. Some studies claim that the largest demographic of social media is the 30+ age group, which is also the age group most likely to be parents of school-age children.  Therefore, the largest number of "social" posts would be related to the lives of this demographic. On searching the internet, it is obvious that social media goes beyond Facebook and Twitter and into very specific issues, including medical information. 

ADHD, AUTISM

Searching the term "ADHD BLOGS" on BING brings up nearly eleven million results.  Simply "ADHD" has nearly twenty six million results.  The search for "AUTISM BLOGS" resulted in 16.6 million responses.  That is 16 million social media sites for the collection of anecdotal data on Autism (www.bing.com ) .  A search for "AUTISM" alone resulted in 42.2 million sites that discuss Autism.  According to the Autism Research Institute,  Marijuana has been used successfully to treat autism in many patients.  Their only warning to cannabis use is regarding the legality.

California's renewed medical distribution regulations in 2004 placed the determination of benefit at the discretion of the prescriber; Arizona's regulations allow for a strict schedule of qualifying diseases.  Until the regulation of cannabis is either removed or becomes universal (Federal), no standard usage and prescribing protocol can be implemented.

 

CANNABIS RESEARCH

The lack of reliable research is one primary reason for the variance in states' prescribing regulations. "Current restrictions on marijuana research are absurd" wrote the editors of Scientific American.  Explaining the process, they argue: 

Any researcher attempting to study marijuana must obtain it through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The U.S. research crop, grown at a single facility, is regarded as less potent--and therefore less medicinally interesting--than the marijuana often easily available on the street. Thus, the legal supply is a poor vehicle for studying the approximately 60 cannabinoids that might have medical applications.

Even with medicalization, and even should state-level permission and funding be provided for such research, the working institution would be at risk of seizure of assets and prosecution by the Federal Government.  Still, the University of California hosts the Center for Medicinal Cancer Research (CMCR), a three year project funded by state legislation.  Just this week, the Governor of Arizona signed a bill into law allowing for Marijuana research at the three Arizona public universities (2013 Brewer signs...). Besides removing a regulation that prohibited marijuana on any of the universities, even if by a registered medical patient, the new law will allow University of Arizona physician Susan Sisley, to perform a rarely approved federal research project on the effect of cannabis on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  It is hoped this will pave the way for further federally approved research on cannabis treatment and other pschological and psychiatric disorders (2013 Arizona Governor...).  








The Green Association for Sustainability

IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE THING IN THE WORLD, WHAT WOULD IT BE?

If you had the power to change one thing in the world that did not affect you personally (forget stuffing your bank account with millions), what would it be? Why would you change it? What’s the most eloquent argument against changing it? What makes you believe the change would be for the better?  What would be the effect on a specific group of strangers?  What would be some possible unintended consequences?

Writing prompt: Gerard, Philip. Writing a Book that Makes A Difference. 2000. Storypress.  Cincinnati, Ohio. pg. 29.

 

If I had the power to change one thing in the world, it would be that Cannabis (Sativa, Indica, and Ruderalis) was completely decriminalized and globally accepted as a legitimate agricultural, medicinal and industrial product. Cannabis flowers have extensive health properties that our ancestors used to heal and to thrive. The stalks of the plant can be used for tools, clothing, and shelter. The seeds are a nutritional foodstuff, contain all twenty-one amino acids and can be made into flour, oil, and nut butter. The Cannabis Plant has evolved next to humans, and has a natural and prolific environmental niche. The Cannabis plant is nature’s survival kit for humans.

The elimination of cannabis from the diets and consumption by humans may have contributed to the increase in certain illnesses and disorders that parents’ groups and scientists claim are from questionable etiologies. This includes allergies and asthma, and certain psychiatric disorders, such as ADD, hyperactivity syndrome, and Autism. The rise in these disorders and the increased efforts to eliminate cannabis use correlate statistically, which is the general rule by which alternative hypotheses are measured. The governments tight restrictions on cannabis purposely and strategically make research by even reputable universities and organizations nearly impossibly.

Even with the large increase in acceptance of cannabis, and the slow but general turn in the perception of cannabis as a healing substance, there are still many who passionately agree with the government’s reasons for not legalizing cannabis. Even though their arguments are often proved specious, the paradigms are deep rooted. For example, the “gateway theory”, or the idea that “marijuana leads to harder drugs” has been found to be untrue and after many years, is now a generally accepted premise. Still, this fact must be reminded to the public at every advocacy chance, in order to keep “urban myths” from spreading. The “DARE” program instituted by G.H.W. Bush, and still taught in elementary schools, is responsible for creating and spreading much of the misinformation about marijuana, and in 2012, the program wisely eliminated any mention of cannabis in the DARE program.

The abuse of any substance is a primary concern for those who are against cannabis legalization, and many medical marijuana supporters are against the general public legalization schemes. Their concern is valid: As a medication, cannabis is invaluable to many of them, and “legalization” threatens the medical paradigm. An example of this is the media portrayal of pot users as lazy hippie throw backs who are always high. A paradox lies in this imaging and the reality of cannabis use.  In reality, the benefits of cannabis as a medicine, a food source, or a sustainable material, outweigh any perceived risks.  The most notable risk of cannabis use lies only in it’s legal status, and the risk that the police will arrest, assault, or shoot you.  Decriminalization of marijuana would effectively eliminate the risk of death by cannabis use.    

The “regulation of cannabis like alcohol” is a popular legalization model, and has already been successfully passed by voters in two states: Washington and Colorado.  These states have very different alcohol regulations; however, Washington is a “closed” alcohol state, where all alcohol is sold and distributed directly by the state.  Colorado recently passed a bill implementing the rules for personal possession and commercial licensing, and plans for implementation are scheduled for 2014. Washington State is a “closed” alcohol state, and recently made news when the State solicited for and hired a Marijuana Specialist to administer the state-run dispensaries.  Both sides of the aisle are curiously and cautiously watching how cannabis will be distributed differently in the state-run alcohol system of Washington versus the private ownership model of Colorado regulations.  

While these regulatory schemes seem to be the only avenue to loosen the governmental grip on cannabis, they still provide complete governmental control and prosecutorial threat to users of cannabis, and do nothing to industrialize hemp.  The reintroduction of hemp would have a positive environmental sustainability impact on the world, but would compete with other industries, including the powerful cotton lobby and those industries responsible for massive deforestation. 

Cannabis Sativa, Indica and ruderalis are valuable plants inherent to the successful evolution of human beings.  The global state control of cannabis is a phenomenon of twentieth century politics, and its prohibition has no basis.  In fact, the loss of cannabis consumption by humans may have had deleterious effects on the human immune system, as well as psychological and spiritual well being.  Simply granting “concessions” is a small attempt at correcting the generational errors made in the early 1900’s.  The regulations that have snowballed into prohibition were originally racially and politically motivated, and furthered through fuel, agricultural and other global industrial interests.  Nothing short of the reversal of the racially and politically motivated regulations that created prohibition is required for the sustainability of humans in the coming age. 

 

c 2013 K Rojas

CANNABIS OIL CURES CANCER



Cannabis Oil cures certain cancers.  We said in the 80's, "I'll bet if pot cured cancer, they would make it legal in a minute!"   We need a CHANGE IN THE PHARMACOLOGY SCHEDULING of Cannabis as Schedule I "no medical use".  Schedule I prevents the "mainstream" research needed for the AMA to once again find favor with Cannabis.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/282344618488138/?fref=ts



The Green Association for Sustainability

Are Compassionate Use laws moot?

Have Compassionate Use and Marijuana Medicalization laws become moot?

After passing two unenforcable Compassionate Use laws in the 90's, and full cannabis medicalization in 2010, Arizona has failed to open dispensaries, and created extraordinary requirements (such as submitting three years of Arizona Tax Returns, and other irrelevant and illegal financial requirements that would disenfrancise the patient population deriving the most benefit from dispensaries).
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/judge_to_arizona_gov_open_the_marijuana_dispensari.php 

In New Jersey, another state with Medicalization and Compassionate Use laws, an M.S. patient appealed his arrest for growing cannabis to the state's Supreme Court, which summarily sentenced him to five years in prison.
http://www.politickernj.com/54244/nj-supreme-court-5-years-prison-ms-patient-growing-marijuana#.Tx7tP3_Bq1g.facebook

Even after Compassionate Use laws have been passed, Medical Marijuana patients are still being arrested and imprisoned with the judicial rational that State administered dispensaries have not been implemented.

Travesties such as this may be expected in the yahoo states that have yet to pass compassionate use laws; but they have become much too common in states who's citizenry has approved and supported the medical use of cannabis. The fact that state-level medical marijuana administrations have failed in developing dispensaries should have no bearing on the impementation of the law, and acceptance of the law by the judicial system.

Advocacy and activist efforts would do well to define and promote medicalization and compassionate use plans that give more than lip service to the voters' wishes.  Voters should be encouraged to deny passage of propositions and plans that rely heavily on government organization, are full of loop-holes to stall implementation, that have restrictive and irrelevant application requirements, and (especially) forbid patients to grow their own plants.  Medical marijuana laws must be fair, accessible, and consistent, but most of all, they should be implementable. 

The Green Association for Sustainability

ELECT GARY JOHNSON and LEGALIZE IT????

New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson's third party Libertarian candidacy has been quietly brewing beneath the Republican primary that is, quite literally, stranger than fiction and very loud. 

His platform?  LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.  Now, before you run out and put a Libertarian in the White House, you may want to find out what Libertarianism is about, and then you know WHY he wants to legalize marijuana. Libertarians want to eliminate the prohibition not because they believe that cannabis has true value, but because they don't believe in government administration.
Gov Gary Johnson Election Platform: It's Time to End the Drug War
At least two MANY issues about this candidates election promises bother me, but I will address just two:
1.  Gary Johnson:  Does he REALLY think that as Prez, he would have that much power to overturn one hundred years of government deception, to open the can on a century of the federal government's "War on Drugs", and to pull back the covers to reveal the true cost of human life and suffering that the prohibition of Marijuana has wrought.   Too many high power people are making too much money by maintaining the drug war status quo, to allow a President to thwart them.

2.  Would you be willing to give your NAME, ADDRESS, DATE OF BIRTH, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, LICENSE NUMBER, MOTHERS MAIDEN NAME, and FINGERPRINTS to obtain a "permit" to purchase marijuana from the Government, or government regulated pharmaceutical?  No one who really thinks about it says yes.

I won't waste your time with info you already know, or personal experiences we've all had.  I believe that human beings are intended to ingest cannabis, having been created/evolved with Cannabinoid receptors in our human biology, The health, emotional, and social benefits of cannabis could be a positive forward move for humanity, but the benefits have been eliminated by prohibition.  Yet, I also believe that LEGALIZATION will play into the hands of the Prohibitionists.  Legalization allows for taxation, and taxation allows for regulation...and we already know how Federal Administrations work/don't work.  The answer is in MEDICALIZATION and DECRIMINALIZATION.  I promise that Federal legalization will NOT allow you to "grow your own", just as you cannot have your own alcohol still. Read "The Case Against Legalization" at http://sustainablygreen.blogspot.com/2010/07/case-against-legalization.html

The Green Association for Sustainability

WHAT HAPPENED TO HB 1491?

In May of this year, House Bill 1491 was sent by the Texas Legislature into the Public Health Committee for review. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Elliott Naishtat, would sanction the physician’s recommendation of medical cannabis to patients without any reprisal or condemnation from the legal or medical communities. Even more importantly, HB1491 allows for the prescribed medical use of Cannabis as an Affirmative Defense against marijuana possession charges.


This is very similar to the Arizona law that protected me from fear of prosecution or arrest while living in Arizona with responsible medical use and a letter from my doctor.

While the law may begin by simply stating a person can present an affirmative defense, if properly supported by a Judiciary that will uphold this defense, positive changes will be affected through fewer bodies incarcerated, especially the sick ones. When the D.A. realizes that the Judges will not jail a person for medically recommended treatment, s/he should follow that it is not in their interest to prosecute such cases, and subsequently refuse to file charges. When law enforcement realizes that the D.A. will not file charges on a medical defense, they will stop wasting their time and further endangering the health of the patients, by arresting them.

While this is NOT medicalization in the “California” sense, it is a GIANT LEAP in the right direction.

Most importantly, it loudly overplays the propagandist rhetoric demonizing cannabis as an illegal street drug that is destroying our “youth”.

And while the most favored arguments against any cannabis use are invented under the inauthentic auspices of protecting the nation’s children, no medicalization effort of yet has included the service to children.

Forbidden fruit always tastes better

From my experience and studies of addiction, communications and human behavior, I would claim that exactly the opposite behavior would be predicted from children raised in a culture where cannabis is medicalized and socially accepted. It is human nature to want what is forbidden; what is not allowed is especially exciting to the developing and curious brain of a child or teen. Medicalization and the unrestricted media, transparency, and advertisement that would come with it, may instead have the effect of desensitization rather than increased curiosity.

Texas HB 1491 appears to be lost in committee. It’s time to wake them up and remind them! Follow the link to the members of the Public Health Committee. Take time to stay on them, stay with this issue.
Follow this link to the Texas Legislature, and another list of links directly to the Public Health Committee Members.  
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Committees/MembershipCmte.aspx?LegSess=82R&CmteCode=C410
If you need another reason or reminder of why this is so very important in Texas, take a look back at my blog entry “The Five Worst States to Get Busted With Pot”, here’s a link so you don’t have to search for it: http://sustainablygreen.blogspot.com/2011/05/norml-five-worst-states-to-get-busted.html

Stay posted, stay involved…

Stop the Mexican Schwag War:  Buy American!
The Green Association for Sustainability

DEPENDENCE vs ADDICTION in Cannabis Users

Is Pot Addictive?
The answer to this question has eluded mankind for nearly one hundred years!

Prior to that, marijuana was not illegal, nor considered an addictive or harmful substance; at least, not by the U.S. government’s standards. Alcohol was the bane of society in the early 1900’s as prohibitionists marched in the streets, many of them quietly addicted to Opioid Tonics freely available from the corner druggist.

As with anything, the answer to the question depends on the presumed definition.

Addiction is a psychological state in which the object of addiction can be any number of drugs, actions, or substances. Calling cannabis addicting in this context is NOT telling the truth, but is a trick of semantics in a society where food has become the most common and dangerous addiction.

Dependence is a physical state in which the object of dependence causes enough physical distress as to make the user continue their addiction even through obvious deleterious consequences. Nicotine has been cited as causing the greatest dependence in humans.

Cannabis does not cause physical addiction or create a physical dependence. There are no dependency-causing chemicals in Cannabis. Any physical discomfort felt by a cannabis user on cessation is psychological.

Although Cannabis can cause psychological addiction, so can any substance or human action: Prohibiting marijuana for a psychological addiction is like criminalizing dice for gambling disorders.

Unlike opiates (Heroin, Morphine), cocaine (Crack), benzos (Xanax), nicotine, and alcohol, Cannabis carries no risk of physical addiction, and has no substances that create a physical addiction. A psychologically addicted user may report anxiety upon "withdrawal"; any "withdrawal" symptoms are purely psychological. Although many studies have proved this, the argument of addiction is one of semantics and medical terminology, as well as ICD-9/10 (Diagnosis) coding.

Cannabis cannot create the condition of "drug dependence"; however, cannabis can create "drug abuse", as can a can of hairspray and a package of bath salts.

Prohibition has not stopped the use, recreational or medical, of marijuana. Cannabis is freely trafficked into the United States from Mexico by violent, dangerous and warring cartels. Although billions have been spent, US Federal forces such as the DEA, INS, and ICE have been unsuccessful in stopping the influx of low-grade cannabis into the United States. This “Schwag” has no medicinal value, and is cheap and widely available and easy to get, especially for the young. Even IF the Feds got their way, and all of the progress in medical cannabis was reversed, the cartels will assure that their brand of blood stained pot is on American streets. Wouldn’t it be better if the sick, suffering, and dying had access to clean, quality Cannabis, safely and transparently available, and prescribed specific to symptomology?

 
 
The Green Association for Sustainability
K. Rojas,
BLS, MLS, CPC

DR. OZ The Truth About Marijuana?

On Wednesday, July 27, 2011, DR. OZ (NBC) addressed the issue of Medical Marijuana. Intending to “tell the truth” about marijuana, the show addressed several issues regarding the scientific, social, and legal issues surrounding medical marijuana. In summing up the show, Dr. Oz called on those states that have passed medical marijuana initiatives to implement them, citing states like New Jersey and Maryland, who have not implemented dispensing regulations.

Although I applaud these efforts, Dr. Oz did not achieve his intent of telling the truth. I found the two statements below especially disturbing.

MARIJUANA:

“…SHOULD NOT BE PRESCRIBED FOR ANXIETY, INSOMNIA, PTSD, OR STRESS”

“…IS ADDICTING…”

1. Cannabis Sativa (White Widow, Haze) has a high ratio of THC to CBD, both cannabinoids, that creates a more "cerebral" effect compared to the heavier opiate like effect of Cannabis Indica. Medicalization has bred out much of the "paranoia" associated with Sativas, and most strains found in dispensaries are a blend of Indicas and Sativas, with Indicas being the most prevalent. In addition, Indicas are easier to grow, heartier, and produce more product per plant than the 12-20 foot spindly Sativa plants. Cannabis Indica has been proven efficacious in treating anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and other stress disorders.

MARINOL is the trade name of synthetic THC. It is available in 2.5, 5, and 10 mg. capsules. It was released as a generic in 2009, under the name "Dronabinol". Unfortunately, this did not lower the price much. A dosing schedule of 5 mgs. three times a day, or 90 capsules per month, would cost approximately $600.00. Few insurance companies cover this medication, and even fewer physicians prescribe it.

Marinol can be very effective for intractable nausea and vomiting. It also helps with cachexia, allowing ill patients to maintain their weight. It is ONLY THC, however, whereas Cannabis contains many different cannabinoids. Especially notable is the lack of CBD (Cannabidiol). Depending on the ratio of THC to CBD, CBD alters the THC effects. High CBN levels compared to THC produces the pain relieving and muscle relaxing effects that are looked for in medical strains. High THC with Low CBN levels is what produces the unwelcomed side effect of anxiety or paranoia. Many dispensaries offer "High CBN" strains for patients looking for specific medicinal properties.

By itself, Dronabinol is specifically effective, but does not have the range of medicinal relief found in inhaled marijuana. For those seeking relief for these specific symptoms, a prescription model that combines dronabinol with marijuana, may reduce the amount of inhaled cannabis while increasing appetite and reducing nausea and still offering pain relief. The financial costs, however, make the use of Dronabinol restrictive, especially when plant cannabis is legally available at a much lower cost.

2. Cannabis does not cause addiction or create a physical dependence. Addiction is a psychological state in which the object of addiction can be any number of drugs, actions, or substances. Calling cannabis addicting in this context is NOT telling the truth.

Although Cannabis can cause psychological addiction, so can any substance or human action: Prohibiting marijuana for a psychological addiction is like criminalizing dice for gambling disorders.

Unlike opiates (Heroin, Morphine), cocaine (Crack), benzos (Xanax), nicotine, and alcohol, Cannabis carries no risk of physical addiction, and has no substances that create a physical addiction. A psychologically addicted user may report anxiety upon "withdrawal"; any "withdrawal" symptoms are purely psychological. Although many studies have proved this, the argument of addiction is one of semantics and medical terminology, as well as ICD-9/10 (Diagnosis) coding.

Cannabis cannot create the condition of "drug dependence"; however, cannabis can create "drug abuse", as can a can of hairspray and a package of bath salts.

Prohibition has not stopped the use, recreational and medical, of marijuana. The illegal Cartels will make certain that the sick, suffering, and dying will have access to Cannabis; it would be much better if it were available safely and transparently, and provided specific to symptomology.



The Green Association for Sustainability

MEDICALIZATION IN ARIZONA: Medicinal Marijuana - No Easy High

According to a local newspaper in Pinal County, Arizona, securing medicalization was only part of the battle to bring medical marijuana to Arizona.  There are still physicians who are resistant to writing prescriptions for medical marijuana, although the article mentions that physicians can and probably will write for Marinol, the pharmaceutically available THC.  Not in any way a substitute for whole plant cannabis, Marinol can be effective for nausea; however as with other oral nausea pharmaceuticals, the difficult task remains of having to ingest medication while vomiting intractably.

Another issue in the Arizona medicalization law, as well as ALL medicalization laws, is the restriction on growing and harvesting personal use plants.  Delaware's medicalization this month saw a complete restriction on private grows, forcing patients into clinics or other state or Big Pharma regulated and run organization.  Last year, four other states medicalized without the right to grow in order to pass a medicalization bill.  Arizona's law states that a medical marijuana patient can only grow 12 plants IF THEY LIVE MORE THAN 25 MILES FROM THE NEAREST DISPENSARY.   Although I understand that some restrictions on growing may be necessary in large urban areas to avoid crime or other undesireable sequelea, such restrictions should be specific and definitively defined so that those who are able to grow safely and securely, can do so.  How far they are from a dispensary should be less important than where the grow area is located, i.e., in a school zone or a business district may not be such a good idea. In Rural areas, and those who live on and own larger lots, for example, should have the right to grow.

The issue of growing is an important issue and right that should not be denied.  Voters who are over-eager to pass medical marijuana bills are agreeing to let the state control their ability to grow the plant, giving up an inalienable right, and giving control to the government and big Pharma. 

A small ray of understanding emerged in the article when it was reported that one interviewed physician, Dr. Hill, admits that because of the existance of cannabis receptors in humans, it is probable that humans evolved with the cannabis plant, and have been using it for thousands of years.  Still, Dr. Hill, an oncologist, states he will not prescribe cannabis to his patients, even though he knows through experience that it does help cancer patients, citing possible Federal retribution, and reflecting the fear factor that the Federal Government can retaliate. 
Although reformers are frustrated at physician's fear and refusal to prescribe, the doctors have good reason to be afraid:  This is not the first time that the government has tricked them when it comes to cannabis.  In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act allowed physicians to prescribe cannabis to their patients, provided they submitted the proper tax fees and paperwork.  In practice, the requirements were extremely precise and difficult, and even the smallest error would result in large fees, loss of license, and even incarceration.  The American Medical Association recommended then that physicians do not prescribe Cannabis, and claiming loudly there after that cannabis was considered to have "no medicinal benefit."  They have been perpetuating this lie for nearly 75 years. 

To read the article in full go here:
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v11/n264/a02.html

Kimmarie

"...the rport of my death was an exaggeration."   --  Mark Twain

NORML: The Five Worst States to Get Busted With Pot

One more reason to, RIGHT NOW, send a letter to your state representative regarding Texas HB 548  and HB 1491! 

TEXAS LANDED AS NUMBER TWO on Paul Armentano's latest list of the top five worst states to get busted in.  Oklahoma was number one, probably because of the laws that allow for life sentences for simple possession.  Texas takes the number two spot due to the fact that the state arrests more of it's citizens on drug charges than any other state. 

Add to that the insult that 97% of these arrests are for possession only, and we have some of our best citizens locked up for no good reason...and I know for a fact that the Houston Police have much better things to do than arrest people for a gram of Kind or a dime-bag of schwag...like having group target practice on the lone "he-was-armed" robber.   

For the full article by Mr. Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, click here:
Bookmark: http://blog.norml.org/2011/05/16/alternet-the-five-worst-states-to-get-busted-with-pot/

And while you're there, check out what's happening in Texas Legislative Session  82 
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB1491
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB548

The Case Against Cannabis Legalization

The Case Against Legalization:
           How Cannabis Taxation and Regulation Laws Further the Prohibitionists' Agenda
by Kimmarie Rojas

Introduction

Cannabis Activists are a-buzz with excitement at the prospect of California’s “Tax and Regulate” campaign, as well as other “legalization” attempts about the Nation. The arguments seem favorable, and the current recession is but another tool in the arsenal of reasons why legalization, taxation and regulation would be the right thing to do.

Yet, lest we forget that “taxation and regulation” of cannabis is the main reason for the original early 20th century federal prohibition of cannabis, be reminded of “The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” placed into federal law requiring only a $1 tax, but with unachievable and public bureaucratic record-keeping and inappropriate punishments for not following the tax act to the letter, ranging from a $2000.00 fine to LIFE imprisonment. Will a Marihuana Tax Act of 2011 reverse this language and "legalization" ruse or add to it? Will another tax and regulate act remove the legal and political bricks which have built impenetrable walls around the production, harvesting, use, transfer, and possession of Marijuana. 
Although California is the thankful forerunner of medicalization, let us also not forget that it was California that made the first law restricting, regulating, and criminalizing cannabis. It was not drugs that California was against then, however. Remember, Cocaine and Heroin were still legal in 1913. Alcoholism and opiate addiction were rampant. It was racism that doomed Cannabis, not a scientific study or a social necessity. Cannabis was smoked by Mexicans; and although they were the indigenous population of the state, closed white puritans minds, believing they were greater than and more entitled in all ways, used their superior political and media powers to spread reefer madness.

Mike Meno wrote the article Colorado’s Governor Signs Medical Marijuana Regulations in the current MPP Blog.. It was a glowing review about this important bill, and how Colorado can set the pace for other state models. It sounded as if this was indeed, a "groundbreaking" event, however after reading the comments, many Colorado caretakers, patients, and smokers, emotionally wrote that this bill is a disaster for MMJ and dispensaries. Read for yourself, and note my comments to the MPP Blog:


The Power to Regulate is the Power to Destroy


Anytime a democratic people must convince the government to stop enforcing unjust laws through mechanisms such as "tax and regulate", that government has succeeded in extorting its citizens. We talk of MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION as a panacea, the end of a war, a freedom. Yet this freedom IS ALREADY OURS, simply because the “laws and regulations” that make possession or use of marijuana a punishable offence are indeed UNJUST laws. It is not “legalization” that will make cannabis free. Legalization implies the inherent right to tax and regulate, to govern the growth of a natural indigenous plant for which our bodies were designed to receive (see “cannabis receptors”), and to exact taxes from the sick, or from the fruits of the earth and human labor, that which was grown by ones own hands. Decriminalization, the repeal of those laws and loopholes in Federal Interstate Commerce laws, and all other administrators and administrations that knowingly or unknowingly created a police state. Just give back what you took one hundred years ago, and let us go on about life. Already, citizens hungry and overdue for medicalization are willing to pass initiatives that give up their right to grow their own cannabis, in return for a highly regulated cannabis medicalization plan. Giving up the right to grow a plant from a seed in one’s own soil with ones own hands is a slippery slope that gives away the very ability to survive. Imagine those sweet tomatoes in the garden being taxed. We may be willing to let the government extort money from us through taxation and legalization, but how many inherent human rights will we allow the Government to take before we realize we have a DUTY to make things right?

c 2010 MariesRun
The Green Association for Sustainability

METHADONE LIFE

METHADONE LIFE
One of the properties of methadone that make it ideal for heroin addiction recovery is that is has a half-life of 24 hours, and can last as long as 36-48 hours in stabilized patients. Yet methadone can be a fickle lover, and there are many things that can cause an early detox, or aberrant metabolization. Too much coffee, extreme stress, not enough sleep, certain medications…the list is as individual as the person. This is one methadone client’s post of a “sleepless methadone night”.

“The plaintiff stood nervously at her lectern, shuffling papers, smacking her lips to smooth her lipstick after combating her nervous dry mouth with a sip of water. The well dressed young woman came before this court to recover a cell phone debt incurred by the defendant, a flamboyant Hollywood boy-toy dressed in a colorful poncho and carrying a designer alligator bag, or brief case, or whatever you want to call it. But the braggart placed it on the table next to his lectern and microphone with a sly and better than thou attitude, shifting his weight from one hip to the other, in that very L.A. metro-sexual way of saying, “oh honey, let’s just get this over with!”
And I heard, “…but the defendant says that she was riding his coattails to the best bars, and normally he wouldn’t have even bothered with someone with only one broken Gucci bag, but he felt sorry for her.”
Huh? Suddenly my attention was piqued for one unbelieving moment and I immediately became disgusted and the phoney wannabe-ness of this ignorantly and narcissistically damaged person (of male persuasion). The plaintiff, smiled in her sweetness in a ‘what can I say?’ sorta way. And for the brief moment it takes to regain consciousness from a restful sleep, I forgot that it was just three o’clock in the morning and that I had only passed one half hour of this endless night.
I try to go back to sleep…sometimes if I close my eyes, when I open them again, an hour or so may have gone by without my knowledge while in this predetoxification state. It is a feeling that I have gotten used to, but that I will never be able to accept. I start to kick my legs as they cramp up on me, and a horrible feeling like a wash of chemicals runs through my esophagus and I can FEEL the taste and smell of the drug that is in every functioning cell of my body.
Getting up and moving around gets rid of that dope sick feeling for a time, and I take advantage of this fact to keep the promise I made myself when I first started this journey on Methadone: I would never dose before 4:30 a.m. An arbitrary time, an arbitrary rule, kind of like many of the clinic rules: just something to keep me in control of these insidious orange disks.



Stop the War: Begin the Healing

The Definition of War

The War on Drugs:

The war on drugs has been propagandized by the media as an actual war – depicted with violence, death, guns -- as if it was any other war in any other time.

Prohibitionist propaganda has insidiously seeped into the deepest level of the American Democratic Experiment, which was built on war…Revolutionary, Civil, and World. The war on drugs has no country of origin, no solitary leader, and is against no particular peoples, but rather is a war against intangibles. Defining War as combat against concepts such as "drug abuse" and "terrorism" is a slippery slope that could lead to rationalization of War to include ethereal concepts, including such basic rights as freedom of religion and association.

The issue often forgotten by the media yet important to note is that the victims of this war, as in any war, are human beings of flesh and blood. What was once a silent war has recently erupted into a full scale military battle just south of the U.S. border. The War on Drugs has now become explicit in its casualties. We see the tanks and the gunfire and we hear about it on the news daily. Rather than the under-cover raids and arrests we are used to learning about on the evening news, the military surge is blatant in its intrusion into our televisions, our homes, our lives. No longer is this a concern of the impoverished or the criminal. It is relevant to our middle-class lives, and as the government continues to wage this War internationally, we fall even deeper into the false notion that a War on Drugs is valid concept.

The American Government has convinced the world that international drug compacts are necessary, and that such an ideal as war against an inanimate object is legitimate. Is it?

What is the definition of WAR?

Do you think the war on drugs has had a positive or negative impact on the use of drugs in the US? Globally?

POT IN THE PDR

For more than 60 years, the Physician's Desk Reference has been the "leading drug resource" , and is advertised as "The most authoritative source of FDA-approved drug information available". (http://www.pdrhealth.com/) Yet, there it is, listed as any other available medication, CANNABIS: "What it is"; "Before Using"; "Dosage"; "To store this medicine"; "Drug and Food Interactions"; "Warnings"; "Side Effects"; and, a researchers' jackpot, THIRTY sources used to determine the medical usage and dosage of cannabis. Since post-World War II, the Food and Drug Administration has denied that cannabis holds any medical value, by classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug. In this way, they assist the Federal Government in their claim of illegality, and as such, it is made enforceable. Even when confronted with conflicting data, including studies showing both the palliative and curative properties of smoked marijuana, the Feds continue to deny medical marijuana, and proactively seek out and prosecute both medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. In 2005, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the Feds right to arrest medical marijuana patients, their caregivers and their providers. In addition, the government may censure physicians from talking about marijuana with their patients. (http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2346)
CLICK THIS LINK TO GO TO THE ONLINE PDR "CANNABIS"
Cannabis Herbal Remedies, Supplements PDRHealth

STOP THE WAR...BEGIN THE HEALING

Henchey Vote, July 28, 2008

HERE ARE THE RESULTS OF THE HINCHEY VOTE JULY, 2008...

A small gain of only 2 affirmative votes has Dave Borden bummed out, but check out these stats...the change of 9 yea votes to NO towers against the 3 NOs changed to YEAs this year. I did find the 27 YEAS from new or no prev voting record inspiring...the squashed by the 45 newbies that voted NO, including 24 Democrats.


165 members of Congress voted for the Hinchey medical marijuana amendment this year (150 of them Democrats), but 262 members of Congress voted against it. Ten members did not have votes recorded (plus Pelosi, for some technical reason as Speaker).
78 Democrats voted against the amendment, while 15 Republicans voted for it.
Nine members who voted Yes on the amendment last year switched their votes to No this time (hiss), and three who voted No last year switched to Yes.
27 members of Congress who are either newly-elected or did not have a vote recorded on the Hinchey amendment last year, voted Yes, only one of them Republican.
45 members of Congress who are either newly-elected, or did not vote on the amendment last year, voted No, including 24 Democrats and 21 Republicans.
Two members of Congress who voted Yes last year did not vote on the amendment this year, and seven members who voted No last year also didn't vote this year.



Stop the War: Begin the Healing

NEW YORK POLICY REQUIRES ALL RECOVERY CENTERS TO BE NON-SMOKING FACILITIES

New anti-smoking regulations that take effect this month for all addiction treatment centers in New York state have some center officials worried that the ban will dissuade some people with alcohol and drug problems from pursuing services, the Associated Press reported July 23.
Shocked by the random cruelty and negative effects of the New York policy requiring smoking bans in ALL Alcohol and Drug Abuse Recovery centers, whether public or private, I was even more incensed at the comments made by bloggers of JoinTogether.org, my original source. Being sorely disappointed in the flat affect of JoinTogether.org’s summarization, I turned to the original article by AP http://www.nysun.com/new-york/state-prohibits-smoking-in-addiction-recovery/82402/ . The original article explicitly argued that such a policy would have negative effects and the journalist’s outrage at such a ridiculous policy was obvious. I began to question the intentions, intelligence and integrity of both JoinTogether.org and its readers, in that most of them thought that this is somehow a good idea! As Join Together failed to chastise such a discriminatory policy that will prevent many from seeking treatment, and others from completing treatment, and the remainder enduring much more pain and frustration from being cold-turkey withdrawn from nicotine; THE MOST ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE AVAILABLE. How does this help addicts?

Although I am disappointed in the lack of hutzpa by JoinTogether.org in not pointing out the many obvious flaws in the policy, I am even more disheartened at the comments. Kudos for one shout out for Harm Reduction policies, but I don’t believe that creating a cigarette smoking ban while trying to focus on more critical issues will separate those who are “serious” about recovering from illegal drug abuse.

There is a sad irony in such useless waste of legislation and power, to ban federally legal nicotine, while the mountain of evidence and public opinion in favor of legalization/medicalization of cannabis continues to gain power, and state support. Marijuana reform bills are finding their way to ballots in an ever increasing rate, and many are holding hopes for anti-prohibition in the election of the right (or, should I say, left?) presidential candidate this year.

Think for yourself, people. Giving “Kudos” to New York (Silva) is just plain ignorant, even if a “drug reform” organization posts it. IMPOSE your own beliefs on yourself…for too long prohibitionists have been imposing their beliefs on others. Making marijuana legal does not MANDATE that every one smoke pot – anti-prohibitionists do not want to IMPOSE their beliefs on anyone. They just want the RIGHT to CHOOSE.


Stop the War: Begin the Healing