Hemp 4 Victory
Hemp4Victory
  • Home
  • Cannabis Blog
  • Contact Webmaster
  • NORML
  • Famous Quotes
  • Drugs Legalized
    • part one
    • part two
  • Cannabis Truth
    • Cannabis Truth Videos
    • Hemp History: United States
  • Interesting Links

Part 2: The invalid, unenforceable, and illegal drug laws need to end!

6/26/2010

0 Comments

 
     After still receiving no further comments from the ONDCP, as promised here is the most compelling evidence for ending the war on cannabis and all drugs under the controlled substances act of 1970. Enjoy!
     Most people know that the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); more commonly known as the “Drug Czar” is an advocate for the government position regarding the drug war. But not everyone knows that he and his office are mandated to tell lies as part of their congressional authorization.
    

According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998:
Responsibilities: The Director “Drug Czar”
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--
(A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;


     Now, let’s take as a simple example, the issue of medical cannabis. If the government finds that cannabis has “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” or “accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision,” then by law, cannabis cannot remain in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.
     However by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form). Therefore, despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical cannabis’s safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients), and clearly the drug czar would know about all this information, he is required by law to lie about it.
     The job description also means that since he must oppose any attempt to legalize, he has no choice but declare that the drug war is working; that legalization would fail, etc., regardless of any… facts. However,
The AP got drug czar Gil Kerlikowske to agree t the drug war is a failure. "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske said. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

     On April 2, 2003, Congressman Ron Paul wrote a letter to the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) asking for an investigation into ONDCP lobbying activities and their dissemination of “misleading information” (a polite euphemism for “lying”)

The GAO responded:

     Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director’s letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. [...]
     ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for “taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use” of certain controlled substances such as marijuana —- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director’s statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director’s individual statements in detail.


     Translation: Since lying is in the job description of the ONDCP, there’s no point in bothering to see whether they’re telling the truth. Keep in mind that this requirement to avoid the truth if it interferes with the mission of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is not limited to the current drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, or most recently, John Walters. Unless the law changes, every future drug czar, even if appointed by a President who solidly supports reform measures, will be constrained by the same job description defined by Congress. One may also wonder, of course, if the nature of the job attracts the type of person who perversely enjoys the power of lying to the country.
     Turning this travesty around requires more than the right person for the job. The offending phrases must be struck from the authorizing language (or perhaps a future President will simply not bother to appoint a new czar).
     Given the frequency that the drug czar is quoted in the press  either much of the media is not aware that he and his staff are required to lie, or they simply feel obligated to print what they say despite the falsehoods. After all, don’t all politicians lie some of the time? Yes, but who else is actually required to do so by law?

     Lie (verb)
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
: to create a false or misleading impression

     The ONDCP staff lies all the time (and specific examples abound all over the web), but not all lies are mere simple statements. One of the most noxious lies (and a common type of lie used by drug warriors) is the intent to deceive through the use of conjoined statements. Here’s an example of the lies, this coming from a White House session:


     Actually Pete, you’ve got the question exactly backwards. Marijuana is a much bigger part of the American addiction problem than most people – teens or adults – realize. There are now more teens going into treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined.

     Note the combination of the two sentences. Marijuana is a bigger addition problem than we realize — there are more teens going into treatment… This is a specific intent to deceive, since the drug czar that the increase of teens in treatment for marijuana has nothing to do with addiction, and everything to do with an increase in governmental referrals. But by placing the two statements together, he attempts to make the lie convincing.

Here’s another example of the conjoined statement lie:

     But marijuana is far from “harmless” it is pernicious. Parents are often unaware that today’s marijuana is different from that of a generation ago, with potency levels 10 to 20 times stronger than the marijuana with which they were familiar.


Here’s another common ONDCP example:

“Quite a few people think that smoking pot is less likely to cause cancer than a regular cigarette,” reads the ad. “You may even have heard some parents say they’d rather their kid smoked a little pot than get hooked on cigarettes. Wrong, and wrong again,” it continues. “One joint can deliver four times as much cancer-causing tar as one cigarette.” According to ONDCP drug czar John Walters, the idea behind the ads is to “give parents some hard facts that they can use to have informed conversations with their kids about the negative consequences of marijuana. …”

     Sometimes they’ll talk about “carcinogens.” Same idea; the intent is to deceive, to convince people that cannabis causes cancer, something they know is not true; so they fall back on the deception, the lie.

     New drug czar Gil Kerlikowske seems not to even bother trying to hide it. It’s almost as though he doesn’t care. Note his comments in California where the fact of marijuana’s medicinal capability is quite fully accepted.

     “Legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary, and it’s not in mine,” he said. [...]
     “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit,” Kerlikowske said in downtown Fresno…

     Now let’s back things up just a little bit to the drug war being a failure. If something is a complete failure shouldn’t it be severed from the rest of what is working? That brings us to the severability clause in the controlled substances act:

TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13 - DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I - CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT


SEVERABILITY:
     Pub. L. 106-310, div. B, title XXXVI, Sec. 3673, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1246, provided that: ''Any provision of  this title (see Short Title of 2000 Amendments note above) held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed as to give the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such provision is held to be utterly invalid or unenforceable, in which event such provision shall be severed from this title and shall not affect the applicability of the remainder of this title, or of such provision, to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.''

      If the drug laws were enforceable, we wouldn't lose countless lives and dollars, and have overcrowded prisons, only to have a substantial supply still on the streets after 72 years of prohibition. If it were enforceable, billions of U.S. dollars wouldn't make its way to Mexican and Canadian cartels. The Drug War doesn't prevent drugs from entering our country (or even prison isolation cells, for that matter), the selling or consumption of drugs, the rising crime rates associated with drug trafficking, nor has it ever stopped children from acquiring them. This "war" has continued for over 70 years, and not a single one of its stated objectives have been accomplished.
     Yes, Prohibition is unenforceable, and yes, cannabis has many valid medical benefits.  If it were legalized and taxed (sales tax only, it is NOT a sin), medicinal or otherwise, then that money would all go back into local communities and effectively lower the crime rates there and abroad as well.


     On the one hand, United States federal government officials have consistently denied that marijuana has any medical benefits. On the other, the government actually holds patents for the medical use of the plant.

     Just check out US Patent 663057titled “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants” which is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services.

 The patent claims that:
     “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.” 

This patent was obtained in October of 2003.

     There is also US Patent 7109245 that was issued September 19, 2006 titled “Vasoconstrictor cannabinoid analogs”

The patent discloses that:
     “The present disclosure concerns pharmaceutical compounds and compositions that are useful as vasoconstrictors, and the use of these compounds, for example in the treatment of shock. Septic shock is a type of vasodilatory shock that is often accompanied by a clinical presentation that suggests infection, such as fever, chills, warm, flushed skin, and hemodynamic instability (characterized by a falling and rising blood pressure). Septic shock is an often fatal condition that accompanies severe microbial infections, frequently with gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella or Bacteroides species. Gram-positive bacterialinfections can also lead to septic shock, particularly those infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus and the Pneumococcus. The bacterial infections can be acquired by routes such as ingestion, personal contact, or trauma, but infections are oftennosocornial consequences of therapeutic procedures, including implantation of indwelling catheters or prosthetic devices. Septic shock often occurs in immunocompromised subjects, and therefore has been an increasing problem in recent years because of the increasing number of individuals who are immunocompromised. For example, subjects with HIV disease or who are taking immunosuppressive drugs for the treatment of cancer or organ transplantation rejection are at increased risk of developing septic shock. In view of the above, there exists a need for agents that counteract the vasodilation associated with shock.

Summary:
     The present inventors (George Kunos and Raj K. Razdan) have demonstrated that abnormal cannabidiol (Abn-cbd) is a selective agonist and cannabidiol is a selective antagonist of an as yet unidentified cannabinoid-like or non-classical receptor distinct from the known cannabinoidreceptors CB1 and CB2. Agonists of these receptors, such as Abn-cbd, are believed to cause vasodilation. Even cannabidiol itself, which is generally an antagonist of the putative receptor, has been found to cause some vasodilation, and it therefore acts as a partial agonist, or mixed agonist/antagonist. It would therefore be desirable to have an agent that acts as a pure, or substantially pure, antagonist at the CB1-like receptor. Such an agent would be particularly useful in the treatment of diseases in which hypotension is the result of the action of endogenous cannabinoids and drug-induced vasoconstriction is desirable, for example in hypotensive states, such as shock. The antagonist would have particular application in vasodilatory shock states, such as septic shock, but it could also be used to achieve selective hemostasis to stop bleeding induced by trauma or surgery.”

     Cannabinoids, for those who were wondering, are a group of chemical compounds found in cannabis that are also referred to as terpenophenolic compounds. One specific cannabinoid compound found in cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. This substance gives cannabis its psychoactive effects.
     The US government may hold this patent, but that will not stop their officials from consistently denying the benefits of medical marijuana. An FDA spokesperson, for instance, has claimed that “smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment.” I guess she didn’t get the memo.
     It makes you wonder why the U.S. government is so unwilling to admit that marijuana has some valid medical properties. It seems unlikely that there is a popularity issue, especially when 60% of Americans believe that doctors should be allowed to prescribe cannabis. Maybe there are some lobbyists or bigwig campaign contributors that would get a little upset.
     Since one part of the government applied for the patent of medical marijuana, and another part of the government approved that patent, it seems logical to conclude that the federal government knows that cannabis has some valid medical properties.

Furthermore the drug laws can be found invalid through violations of property rights as follows:
     Officials have no right to take life, freedom, or property (life/murder, freedom/enslave, property/theft). Drug laws are invalid as they prohibit ownership of property & violate a right to contract. They’ve slowly increased power of the police to violate other rights of privacy, further property rights infringement procedures where the state keeps the property even if there are no charges pressed against the person the property was stolen from. As the constitution protects our liberty, making it illegal to own property is in conflict to the constitution making these laws invalid. Any enforcement of these laws is punishable under US Code Section 18 Title 13 Sections 241&242
     Since you own your life, you are responsible for your own life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. You are also free from the chains of enslavement and cannot be forced to do anything against your will. Any laws that deprive someone of their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by limiting their choices is in direct violation of the concepts of liberty, and as liberty is a protected right under the constitution these laws are invalid.

Now the hard part; how do we get them to admit it?

 

 
0 Comments

Part 1: The invalid, unenforceable, and illegal drug laws need to end!

6/23/2010

0 Comments

 
The following correspondence between the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) and me is in response to removing cannabis from CSA (Controlled Substance Act) (http://tinyurl.com/23sh5ys). Please enjoy the direct avoidance that the ONDCP makes in the following e-mails.

Thank you for contacting ONDCP.
      On April 20th, 2006, the FDA issued an advisory concluding that no
sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked
marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human
data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general
medical use.
      There are alternative FDA-approved medications in existence for
treatment of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana. For
example, a prescription drug, Marinol, is currently available to
anyone with a doctor's prescription. Marinol contains THC, the active
ingredient in marijuana, and has been approved for some of the same
uses as medicinal marijuana.
 To learn more about "medical marijuana," please visit the following
Web sites:
      Medical Marijuana Reality Check
http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/marijuana_fs.pdf
      Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a
Medicine
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html
      Medical Marijuana - Marinol
http://www.dea.gov/ongoing/marinol.html
      Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed/
      Marijuana Studies/Articles from the National Institute on Drug Abuse
http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugpages/marijuana.html
      Marijuana Research Report
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html
      The DEA Position on Marijuana
http://www.dea.gov/marijuana_position.html
 Please let us know if you have any questions.
 Thank you,
 ONDCP Clearinghouse
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov


My Response:
     As a matter of fact I do have a couple of questions. First is the fact that the words "smoked marijuana" were used together quite frequently. Now smoked cannabis may not be accepted medically but how about ingested cannabis, such as pot brownies and cookies? Also if there is no accepted medicinal value on cannabis, which is a requirement for a schedule 1 controlled substance; then why does the US Department of Health and Human Services hold patent 6630507 titled "cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" that reads as follows?:
      “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.”
      This patent was obtained in October of 2003.
  I look forward to your timely response!
 Thank you,
Sean Crystal
420_freedom


Initial avoidance of my questions from the ONDCP:
Dear Mr. Crystal,
      Thank you for contacting ONDCP.
      Marijuana is a dangerous drug and remains in Schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act. The President opposes marijuana
legalization as does ONDCP Director Kerlikowske, who provides the
following information:
      Marijuana Legalization: A Non-Starter
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press09/marijuana_legalizatio
n.html
      The following resource and Web site provide information about
marijuana and why it remains a controlled substance:
      Denial of Marijuana Rescheduling
http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=973249
28153+0+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
     Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization
http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/index.html
      If you would like to view information about marijuana and its
effects, please visit the following Web sites:
      The DEA Position on Marijuana
http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html
      Marijuana Myths & Facts: The Truth Behind 10 Popular Misperceptions
http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/marijuana_myths_facts.
pdf
      What Americans Need to Know About Marijuana
http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf
      Marijuana Abuse Research Report
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html
      Marijuana Facts and Figures
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html
      Marijuana-Info.org
http://www.marijuana-info.org/
      Please let us know if you have any questions.
 Thank you,
 Content Specialist
ONDCP Clearinghouse
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov


My reply:
     As a matter of fact I do still have a couple of questions, and they are the same questions you failed to answer in the prior e-mail. First is the fact that the words "smoked marijuana" were used together quite frequently. Now smoked cannabis may not be accepted medically but how about cannabis ingested through brownies and cookies, or for that matter how about vaporized cannabis? Also if there is no accepted medicinal value on cannabis, which is a requirement for a schedule 1 controlled substance; then why does the US Department of Health and Human Services hold patent 6630507 titled "cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" that reads as follows?:
     “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.”
      This patent was obtained in October of 2003.
 I look forward to your timely response and actually receiving an answer to my questions!
 Thank you,
Sean Crystal
420_freedom


More avoidance from the ONDCP and the final correspondence:
Dear Mr. Crystal,
      Thank you for contacting ONDCP.
      What constitutes safe and effective medicine should continue to be
based upon reviews of the appropriate science by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). Medical evidence does not support the efficacy
of smoked marijuana for medical purposes. ONDCP will continue to work
closely with other stakeholders to review law, science, and medicine
to refine the Administration's marijuana enforcement policy.
      Following is some specific information and resources concerning
medical marijuana:
      On April 20th, 2006, the FDA issued an advisory concluding that no
sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked
marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human
data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general
medical use.
      There are alternative FDA-approved medications in existence for
treatment of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana. For
example, a prescription drug, Marinol, is currently available to
anyone with a doctor's prescription. Marinol contains THC, the active
ingredient in marijuana, and has been approved for some of the same
uses as medicinal marijuana.
      To learn more about "medical marijuana," please visit the following
Web sites:
      Medical Marijuana Fact Sheet
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.org/drugfact/pdf/medicalmarijuanfactsh
eet.pdf
     Medical Marijuana Reality Check
http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/marijuana_fs.pdf
     Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a
Medicine
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm1086
43.htm
      Medical Marijuana - Marinol
http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html
      Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed/
      Marijuana Studies/Articles from the National Institute on Drug Abuse
http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugpages/marijuana.html
      Marijuana Research Report
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html
      The DEA Position on Marijuana
http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html
      Please let us know if you have any questions.
 Thank you,
 Content Specialist
ONDCP Clearinghouse
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov


My last two e-mails to the ONDCP have been waiting for a response for over a week:
     You have completely avoided answering my questions yet again with this pish posh nonsense on "smoked marijuana." Now smoked cannabis may not have medical value, but how about cannabis ingested through brownies and cookies, or for that matter vaporized cannabis? If there is no accepted medicinal value on cannabis, which is a requirement for a schedule 1 controlled substance; then why does the US Department of Health and Human Services hold patent 6630507 titled "cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" that reads as follows?:
     “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.”
      This patent was obtained in October of 2003.
      Also under this fact of medical value; Why does the AMA (American Medical Association) and the ACP (American College of Physicians) accept medicinal value on cannabis? In fact the AMA has more than 7000 physicians that have accepted the use of cannabis for more than 400,000 patients.
      If the ONDCP wants to avoid my first two questions yet again then here are some new questions. Under the Severability clause in the controlled substances act the drug laws should be abolished or changed. In a major, broad-ranging report released Thursday, the Associated Press declared that "After 40 years, $1 Trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals." The report notes that after four decades of prohibitionist drug enforcement, "Drug use is rampant and violence is even more brutal and widespread." The AP even got drug czar Gil Kerlikowske to agree. "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske said. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified." This should cause the following to become in effect:

TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13 - DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I - CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT


 SEVERABILITY
     Pub. L. 106-310, div. B, title XXXVI, Sec. 3673, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1246, provided that: ''Any provision of this title (see Short Title of 2000 Amendments) held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed as to give the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such provision is held to be utterly invalid or unenforceable, in which event such provision shall be severed from this title and shall not affect the applicability of the remainder of this title, or of such provision, to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.''

     Why has this not been upheld, and why can't the ONDCP give me an honest answer to any of my questions? Is it because of the following text that basically requires lies to the citizens of America about these schedule 1 controlled substances?  

     According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998:
Responsibilities: The Director “Drug Czar”
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--
(A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

 
      I look forward to your timely response, and hope that the ONDCP realizes that there's people that are smarter than them.
Thank you,

Sean Crystal
420_freedom



To whom it may concern,
     You failed to reply to my prior e-mail which will be included in this; however it will be revised once again. I presume the reasoning for not replying back to me is because the ONDCP knows the laws are wrong, doesn't want to change the laws, and doesn't want to say anything that could cause the laws to be changed. That would also explain the direct avoidance of questions that I've had, and the fact that these laws on cannabis are invalid. Every which way you look at it the cannabis laws should be abolished. There's accepted medicinal value in not 1 but 2 patents held by the Dept. of Health and Human Services. The drug war has been admitted as a failure by many politicians and law enforcement agencies including our current Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske. This should enforce the severability clause of the Controlled Substances Act. Prohibition of cannabis began because of yellow journalism winning over medical science in a case of who's got more money! Why does the ONDCP continue to avoid me...are you scared?


Previous e-mail revised:
     Smoked cannabis may not have medical value, but how about cannabis ingested through brownies and cookies, or for that matter vaporized cannabis? If there is no accepted medicinal value on cannabis, which is a requirement for a schedule 1 controlled substance; then why does the US Department of Health and Human Services hold US Patent 6630507 titled "cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" that reads as follows?:
     “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.”
      This patent was obtained in October of 2003.

There is also US Patent 7109245 that was issued September 19, 2006 titled “Vasoconstrictor cannabinoid analogs”

The patent discloses that: 
     “The present disclosure concerns pharmaceutical compounds and compositions that are useful as vasoconstrictors, and the use of these compounds, for example in the treatment of shock. Septic shock is a type of vasodilatory shock that is often accompanied by a clinical presentation that suggests infection, such as fever, chills, warm, flushed skin, and hemodynamic instability (characterized by a falling and rising blood pressure). Septic shock is an often fatal condition that accompanies severe microbial infections, frequently with gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella or Bacteroides species. Gram-positive bacterialinfections can also lead to septic shock, particularly those infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus and the Pneumococcus. The bacterial infections can be acquired by routes such as ingestion, personal contact, or trauma, but infections are oftennosocornial consequences of therapeutic procedures, including implantation of indwelling catheters or prosthetic devices. Septic shock often occurs in immunocompromised subjects, and therefore has been an increasing problem in recent years because of the increasing number of individuals who are immunocompromised. For example, subjects with HIV disease or who are taking immunosuppressive drugs for the treatment of cancer or organ transplantation rejection are at increased risk of developing septic shock. In view of the above, there exists a need for agents that counteract the vasodilation associated with shock.

Summary:
     The present inventors (George Kunos and Raj K. Razdan) have demonstrated that abnormal cannabidiol (Abn-cbd) is a selective agonist and cannabidiol is a selective antagonist of an as yet unidentified cannabinoid-like or non-classical receptor distinct from the known cannabinoidreceptors CB1 and CB2. Agonists of these receptors, such as Abn-cbd, are believed to cause vasodilation. Even cannabidiol itself, which is generally an antagonist of the putative receptor, has been found to cause some vasodilation, and it therefore acts as a partial agonist, or mixed agonist/antagonist. It would therefore be desirable to have an agent that acts as a pure, or substantially pure, antagonist at the CB1-like receptor. Such an agent would be particularly useful in the treatment of diseases in which hypotension is the result of the action of endogenous cannabinoids and drug-induced vasoconstriction is desirable, for example in hypotensive states, such as shock. The antagonist would have particular application in vasodilatory shock states, such as septic shock, but it could also be used to achieve selective hemostasis to stop bleeding induced by trauma or surgery.”

     Also under this fact of medical value; Why does the AMA (American Medical Association) and the ACP (American College of Physicians) accept medicinal value on cannabis? In fact the AMA has more than 7000 physicians that have accepted theuse of cannabis for more than 400,000 patients.
     If the ONDCP wants to avoid my first two questions yet again then here are some new questions. Under the Severability clause in the controlled substances act the drug laws should be abolished or changed. In a major, broad-ranging report released Thursday, the Associated Press declared that "After 40 years, $1 Trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals." The report notes that after four decades of prohibitionist drug enforcement, "Drug use is rampant and violence is even more brutal and widespread." The AP even got drug czar Gil Kerlikowske to agree. "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske said. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified." This should cause the following to become in effect:

TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13 - DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I - CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT


SEVERABILITY    
     Pub. L. 106-310, div. B, title XXXVI, Sec. 3673, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1246, provided that: ''Any provision of this title (see Short Title of 2000 Amendments) held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed as to give the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such provision is held to be utterly invalid or unenforceable, in which event such provision shall be severed from this title and shall not affect the applicability of the remainder of this title, or of such provision, to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.''

 
     Why has this not been upheld, and why can't the ONDCP give me an honest answer to any of my questions? Is it because of the following text that basically requires lies to the citizens of America about these shedule 1 controlled substances?  

According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998:
Responsibilities: The Director “Drug Czar”
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--
(A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;


     I look forward to your timely response, and hope for the sake of my fellow Americans; the hard working, non-violent, taxpaying citizens that on a daily basis are having their lives destroyed, careers ended, and families’ torn apart; that the ONDCP realizes there wrongs and takes any and all means necessary to correct them. It's not a war on drugs; it's an unnecessary evil that are government has forced upon us called prohibition. God didn't put us on this Earth with the prohibition of this plant so why is the ONDCP enforcing this?
Thank you,
Sean Crystal

420_freedom

 

I have all the information required for the drug wars to be abolished by law, without law change. The government has held us to the lies of prohibition by creating rules such as the responsibilities of the drug czar. Our government has used the drug laws to for property rights infringements. Let’s hold these people that have enforced these laws responsible by law. I am not going to post this additional information in the same post please watch for it!



Part 2 will be posted very soon!

 

 
0 Comments

DEA refuses Hemp!

6/21/2010

0 Comments

 
     Advocates say legalizing hemp farming could bring millions of dollars to Oregon, but the DEA won't allow it. Hemp, which has no effect as a drug but can be used to produce food, fuel, building materials, and textiles cannot escape its association with cannabis.
     Advocates also mentioned that the simple act of letting Oregon farmers grow hemp could eventually bring millions of dollars into the state. Canadian farmers made more than $8 million on hemp last year, according to the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance. Advocates in Oregon say once a homegrown U.S. hemp industry gets started, the potential profits here are far greater.
     But the DEA refuses, making the US only industrialized nation in the world where farmers can’t grow hemp

 
0 Comments

Cannabis in the brain!

6/16/2010

0 Comments

 
     Cannabis is a drug with a mixed history. Mention it to one person, and it will conjure images of potheads lost in a spaced-out stupor. To another, it may represent relaxation, a slowing down of modern madness. To yet another, cannabis, means hope for cancer patients suffering from the debilitating nausea of chemotherapy, or it is the promise of relief from chronic pain. The drug is all these things and more, for its history is a long one, spanning millennia and continents. It is also something everyone is familiar with, whether they know it or not. Everyone grows a form of the cannabis, regardless of their political leanings or recreational proclivities. That is because the brain makes its own cannabis, natural compounds called endocannabinoids (after the plant's formal name, Cannabis sativa). One of the most common of theses endocannabinoids is anandamide (the body’s natural relaxant).
     The study of endocannabinoids in recent years has led to exciting discoveries. By examining these substances, researchers have exposed an entirely new signaling system in the brain: a way that nerve cells communicate that no one anticipated even 15 years ago. Fully understanding this signaling system could have far-reaching implications. The details appear to hold a key to devising treatments for anxiety, pain, nausea, obesity, brain injury and many other medical problems. Ultimately such treatments could be tailored precisely so that they would not initiate the unwanted side effects produced by cannabis itself.

A Checkered Past
     Cannabis and its various alter egos, such as bhang and hashish, are among the most widely used psychoactive drugs in the world. How the plant has been used varies by culture. The ancient Chinese knew of the herb’s pain-relieving and mind-altering effects, yet it was not widely employed for its psychoactive properties; instead it was cultivated as hemp for the manufacture of rope and fabric. Likewise, the ancient Greeks and Romans used hemp to make rope and sails. In some other places, however, marijuana's intoxicating properties became important. In India, for example, the plant was incorporated into religious rituals. During the Middle Ages, its use was common in Arab lands; in 15th-century Iraq it was used to treat epilepsy; in Egypt it was primarily consumed as an inebriant. After Napoleon's occupation of Egypt, Europeans began using the drug as an intoxicant. During the slave trade, it was transported from Africa to Mexico, the Caribbean and South America. 

     Cannabis gained a following in the U.S. only relatively recently. During the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, cannabis was freely available without a prescription for a wide range of ailments, including migraine and ulcers. Immigrants from Mexico introduced it as a recreational drug to New Orleans and other large cities, where it became popular among jazz musicians. By the 1930s it had fallen into disrepute, and an intense lobbying campaign demonized "reefer madness." In 1937 the U.S. Congress, against the advice of the American Medical Association (AMA), passed the Marijuana Tax Act, effectively banning use of the drug by making it expensive and difficult to obtain. Ever since, cannabis has remained one of the most controversial drugs in American society. Despite efforts to change its status, it remains federally classified as a Schedule 1 drug, along with heroin and LSD, considered dangerous and without utility. 
     Millions of people smoke or ingest cannabis for its intoxicating effects, which are subjective and often described as resembling an alcoholic "high." It is estimated that approximately 30 percent of the U.S. population older than 12 have tried marijuana, but only about 5 percent are current users. Large doses cause hallucinations in some individuals but simply trigger sleep in others. The weed impairs short-term memory and cognition and adversely affects motor coordination, although these setbacks seem to be reversible once the drug has been purged from the body.
     On the other hand, the drug has clear medicinal benefits. Cannabis alleviates pain and anxiety. It can prevent the death of injured neurons. It suppresses vomiting and enhances appetite; useful features for patients suffering the severe weight loss that can result from chemotherapy.

Finding the Responsible Agent
     Figuring out how the drug exerts these myriad effects has taken a long time. In 1964, after nearly a century of work by many individuals, Raphael Mechoulam of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem identified delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as the compound that accounts for virtually all the pharmacological activity of marijuana. The next step was to identify the receptor or receptors to which THC was binding. 

     Receptors are small proteins embedded in the membranes of all cells, including neurons, and when specific molecules bind to them--fitting like one puzzle piece into another--changes in the cell occur. Some receptors have water-filled pores or channels that permit chemical ions to pass into or out of the cell. These kinds of receptors work by changing the relative voltage inside and outside the cell. Other receptors are not channels but are coupled to specialized proteins called G-proteins. These G-protein-coupled receptors represent a large family that set in motion a variety of biochemical signaling cascades within cells, often resulting in changes in ion channels. 
     In 1988 Allyn C. Howlett and her colleagues at St. Louis University attached a radioactive tag to a chemical derivative of THC and watched where the compound went in rats' brains. They discovered that it attached itself to what came to be called the cannabinoid receptor, also known as CB1. Based on this finding and on work by Miles Herkenham of the National Institutes of Health, Lisa Matsuda, also at the NIH, cloned the CB1 receptor. The importance of CB1 in the action of THC was proved when two researchers working independently; Catherine Ledent of the Free University of Brussels and Andreas Zimmer of the Laboratory of Molecular Neurobiology at the University of Bonn bred mice that lacked this receptor. Both investigators found that THC had virtually no effect when administered to such a mouse: the compound had nowhere to bind and hence could not trigger any activity. (Another cannabinoid receptor, CB2, was later discovered; it operates only outside the brain and spinal cord and is involved with the immune system. There has also since been more study that has found other cannabinoids useful in certain treatments through receptors other than CB1 and CB2). 
     As researchers continued to study CB1, they learned that it was one of the most abundant G-protein coupled receptors in the brain. It has its highest densities in the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, cerebellum, basal ganglia, brain stem, spinal cord and amygdala. This distribution explains marijuana's diverse effects. Its psychoactive power comes from its action in the cerebral cortex. Memory impairment is rooted in the hippocampus, a structure essential for memory formation. The drug causes motor dysfunction by acting on movement control centers of the brain. In the brain stem and spinal cord, it brings about the reduction of pain; the brain stem also controls the vomiting reflex. The hypothalamus is involved in appetite, the amygdala in emotional responses. Cannabis clearly does so much because it acts everywhere. 
     Over time, details about CB1's neuronal location emerged as well. Elegant studies by Tamás F. Freund of the Institute of Experimental Medicine at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest and Kenneth P. Mackie of the University of Washington revealed that the cannabinoid receptor occurred only on certain neurons and in very specific positions on those neurons. It was densely packed on neurons that released GABA (gamma-amino-butyric acid), which is the brain's main inhibitory neurotransmitter (it tells recipient neurons to stop firing). CB1 also sat near the synapse, the contact point between two neurons. This placement suggested that the cannabinoid receptor was somehow involved with signal transmission across GABA-using synapses. But why would the brain's signaling system include a receptor for something produced by a plant?

The Lesson of Opium
     The same question had arisen in the 1970s about morphine, a compound isolated from the poppy and found to bind to so-called opiate receptors in the brain. Scientists finally discovered that people make their own opioids--the enkephalins and endorphins. Morphine simply hijacks the receptors for the brain's opioids. 

     It seemed likely that something similar was happening with THC and the cannabinoid receptor. In 1992, 28 years after he identified THC, Mechoulam discovered a small fatty acid produced in the brain that binds to CB1 and that mimics all the activities of marijuana. He named it anandamide, after the Sanskrit word ananda, "bliss." Subsequently, Daniele Piomelli and Nephi Stella of the University of California at Irvine discovered that another lipid, 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG), is even more abundant in certain brain regions than anandamide is. Together the two compounds are considered the major endogenous cannabinoids, or endocannabinoids. (Recently investigators have identified what look like other endogenous cannabinoids, but their roles are uncertain.) The two cannabinoid receptors clearly evolved along with endocannabinoids as part of natural cellular communication systems. Cannabis happens to resemble the endocannabinoids enough to activate cannabinoid receptors. 
     Conventional neurotransmitters are water-soluble and are stored in high concentrations in little packets, or vesicles, as they wait to be released by a neuron. When a neuron fires, sending an electrical signal down its axon to its tips (presynaptic terminals), neurotransmitters released from vesicles cross a tiny intercellular space (the synaptic cleft) to receptors on the surface of a recipient, or postsynaptic, neuron. In contrast, endocannabinoids are fats and are not stored but rather are rapidly synthesized from components of the cell membrane. They are then released from places all over the cells when levels of calcium rise inside the neuron or when certain G-protein-coupled receptors are activated. 
     As unconventional neurotransmitters, cannabinoids presented a mystery, and for several years no one could figure out what role they played in the brain. Then, in the early 1990s, the answer emerged in a somewhat roundabout fashion. Scientists (Alger, and his colleague at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Thomas A. Pitler) found something unusual when studying pyramidal neurons, the principal cells of the hippocampus. After calcium concentrations inside the cells rose for a short time, incoming inhibitory signals in the form of GABA arriving from other neurons declined. 
     At the same time, Alain Marty, now at the Laboratory of Brain Physiology at the René Descartes University in Paris, and his colleagues saw the same action in nerve cells from the cerebellum. These were unexpected observations, because they suggested that receiving cells were somehow affecting transmitting cells and, as far as anyone knew, signals in mature brains flowed across synapses in one way only: from the presynaptic cell to the postsynaptic one.

A New Signaling System
     It seemed possible that a new kind of neuronal communication had been discovered, and so researchers set out to understand this phenomenon. They dubbed the new activity DSI, for depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition. For DSI to have occurred, some unknown messenger must have traveled from the postsynaptic cell to the presynaptic GABA-releasing one and somehow shut off the neurotransmitter's release. 

     Such backward, or "retrograde," signaling was known to occur only during the development of the nervous system. If it were also involved in interactions among adult neurons, that would be an intriguing find; a sign that perhaps other processes in the brain involved retrograde transmission as well. Retrograde signaling might facilitate types of neuronal information processing that were difficult or impossible to accomplish with conventional synaptic transmission. Therefore, it was important to learn the properties of the retrograde signal. Yet its identity remained elusive. Over the years, countless molecules were proposed. None of them worked as predicted. 
     Then, in 2001, Nicoll and his colleague at the University of California at San Francisco, Rachel I. Wilson--and at the same time, but independently, a group led by Masanobu Kano of Kanazawa University in Japan--reported that an endocannabinoid, probably 2-AG, perfectly fit the criteria for the unknown messenger. Both groups found that a drug blocking cannabinoid receptors on presynaptic cells prevents DSI and, conversely, that drugs activating CB1 mimic DSI. They soon showed, as did others, that mice lacking cannabinoid receptors are incapable of generating DSI. The fact that the receptors are located on the presynaptic terminals of GABA neurons now made perfect sense. The receptors were poised to detect and respond to endocannabinoids released from the membranes of nearby postsynaptic cells. 
     Over time, DSI proved to be an important aspect of brain activity. Temporarily dampening inhibition enhances a form of learning called long-term potentiation; the process by which information is stored through the strengthening of synapses. Such storage and information transfer often involves small groups of neurons rather than large neuronal populations, and endocannabinoids are well suited to acting on these small assemblages. As fat-soluble molecules, they do not diffuse over great distances in the watery extracellular environment of the brain. Avid uptake and degradation mechanisms help to ensure that they act in a confined space for a limited period. Thus, DSI, which is a short-lived local effect, enables individual neurons to disconnect briefly from their neighbors and encode information. 
     A host of other findings filled in additional gaps in understanding about the cellular function of endocannabinoids. Researchers showed that when these neurotransmitters lock onto CB1 they can in some cases block presynaptic cells from releasing excitatory neurotransmitters. As Wade G. Regehr of Harvard University and Anatol C. Kreitzer, now at Stanford University, found in the cerebellum, endocannabinoids located on excitatory nerve terminals aid in the regulation of the massive numbers of synapses involved in coordinated motor control and sensory integration. This involvement explains, in part, the slight motor dysfunction and altered sensory perceptions often associated with smoking cannabis. 
     Recent discoveries have also begun to precisely link the neuronal effects of endocannabinoids to their behavioral and physiological effects. Scientists investigating the basis of anxiety commonly begin by training rodents to associate a particular signal with something that frightens them. They often administer a brief mild shock to the feet at the same time that they generate a sound. After a while the animal will freeze in anticipation of the shock if it hears the sound. If the sound is repeatedly played without the shock, however, the animal stops being afraid when it hears the sound; that is, it unlearns the fear conditioning, a process called extinction. In 2003 Giovanni Marsicano of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich and his co-workers showed that mice lacking normal CB1 readily learn to fear the shock-related sound, but in contrast to animals with intact CB1, they fail to lose their fear of the sound when it stops being coupled with the shock. 
     The results indicate that endocannabinoids are important in extinguishing the bad feelings and pain triggered by reminders of past experiences. The discoveries raise the possibility that abnormally low numbers of cannabinoid receptors or the faulty release of endogenous cannabinoids are involved in post-traumatic stress syndrome, phobias and certain forms of chronic pain. This suggestion fits with the fact that some people smoke cannabis to decrease their anxiety. It is also conceivable, though far from proved, that chemical mimics of these natural substances could allow us to put the past behind us when signals that we have learned to associate with certain dangers no longer have meaning in the real world.

Devising New Therapies
     The repertoire of the brain's own marijuana has not been fully revealed, but the insights about endocannabinoids have begun helping researchers design therapies to harness the medicinal properties of the plant. Several synthetic THC analogues are already commercially available, such as nabilone and dronabinol. They combat the nausea brought on by chemotherapy; dronabinol also stimulates appetite in AIDS patients. Other cannabinoids relieve pain in myriad illnesses and disorders. In addition, a CB1 antagonist--a compound that blocks the receptor and renders it impotent--has worked in some clinical trials to treat obesity. But though promising, these drugs all have multiple effects because they are not specific to the region that needs to be targeted. Instead they go everywhere, causing such adverse reactions as dizziness, sleepiness, problems of concentration, and thinking abnormalities. 

     One way around these problems is to enhance the role of the body's own endocannabinoids. If this strategy is successful, endocannabinoids could be called forth only under the circumstances and in the locations in which they are needed, thus avoiding the risks associated with widespread and indiscriminant activation of cannabinoid receptors. To do this, Piomelli and his colleagues are developing drugs that prevent the endocannabinoid anandamide from being degraded after it is released from cells. Because it is no longer broken down quickly, its anxiety-relieving effects last longer. 
     Anandamide seems to be the most abundant endocannabinoid in some brain regions, whereas 2-AG dominates in others. A better understanding of the chemical pathways that produce each endocannabinoid could lead to drugs that would affect only one or the other. In addition, we know that endocannabinoids are not produced when neurons fire just once but only when they fire five or even 10 times in a row. Drugs could be developed that would alter the firing rate and hence endocannabinoid release. A precedent for this idea is the class of anticonvulsant agents that suppress the neuronal hyperactivity underlying epileptic seizures but do not affect normal activity.
     Finally, indirect approaches could target processes that themselves regulate endocannabinoids. Dopamine is well known as the neurotransmitter lost in Parkinson's disease, but it is also a key player in the brain's reward systems. Many pleasurable or addictive drugs, including nicotine and morphine, produce their effects in part by causing dopamine to be released in several brain centers. It turns out that dopamine can cause the release of endocannabinoids, and various research teams have found that two other neurotransmitters, glutamate and acetylcholine, also initiate endocannabinoid synthesis and release. Indeed, endocannabinoids may be a source of effects previously attributed solely to these neurotransmitters. Rather than targeting the endocannabinoid system directly, drugs could be designed to affect the conventional neurotransmitters. Regional differences in neurotransmitter systems could be exploited to ensure that endocannabinoids would be released only where they were needed and in appropriate amounts. 
     In a remarkable way, the effects of cannabis have led to the still unfolding story of the endocannabinoids. The receptor CB1 seems to be present in all vertebrate species, suggesting that systems employing the brain's own marijuana have been in existence for about 500 million years. During that time, endocannabinoids have been adapted to serve numerous, often subtle, functions. We have learned that they do not affect the development of fear, but the forgetting of fear; they do not alter the ability to eat, but the desirability of the food, and so on. Their presence in parts of the brain associated with complex motor behavior, cognition, learning and memory implies that much remains to be discovered about the uses to which evolution has put these interesting messengers.

 

 
0 Comments

Barrack Obama's past cannabis use!

6/11/2010

0 Comments

 
Junkie. That’s where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection. And if the high didn't solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism.
Source: Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p. 87 Aug 1, 1996
0 Comments

Cannabis workers could become unionized!

6/5/2010

0 Comments

 
     The cannabis industry is reaching new highs in California. Local 5 of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) is organizing pot workers at cannabis clubs in Oakland, Calif. The 26,000-member UFCW is said to be the first in the country to organize workers in cannabis-related business.
     About 100 pot workers at three medical marijuana dispensaries in Oakland have joined the union, whose membership includes commercial grocery store workers, some agriculture workers and retail clerks.
     The union is looking at possible new job classifications including “bud tender,” an expert who helps clients find the right type of cannabis for their ailments.  
     Some of the union’s newest members are graduates of Oaksterdam University, a cannabis trade school that trains students for careers in the cannabis industry.  Others come from local cannabis clubs.    
     Ron Lind, president of Local 5 and a vice president of the 1.3 million-member international union told SF Gate, "These will be good union jobs with middle-class incomes."
     Analysts say unionization efforts could help the effort to legalize cannabis and the union to organize thousands of workers if the measure meets voter approval.
     The move could help legitimize the idea of legalizing and taxing cannabis.
     In November, California voters will decide whether to approve the Control and Tax Cannabis initiative. The measure would legalize pot possession and use of small amounts of cannabis for those over 21 and would allow it to be taxed.
     In a Public Policy Institute of California poll taken last week, about 49 percent of state voters approve the idea while 48 percent are against the initiative.
     Ken Jacobs, chair of University of California at Berkeley's Labor Center, which conducts research and education on labor issues told the SF Chronicle, "Local 5 is a very large and highly respected union. This reflects a change about attitudes about cannabis in this state—and the recognition of the economic realities that California is facing.”

 
0 Comments

    Archives

    May 2019
    February 2015
    November 2014
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    April 2012
    January 2012
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009

    Picture
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.